Preamble

The House met at Ten o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Live Animals (Export)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mr. Gary Streeter: I am delighted to have secured this important Adjournment debate on the transportation of live animals, but before I begin my speech, I am sure that the whole House would join me in sending our best wishes to our Prime Minister in Belfast this morning as he takes part in that vital initiative.
Animal welfare is of great concern to many of our citizens, who have been genuinely distressed by some of the scenes of cruelty to animals in the process of live transportation that they have witnessed. It is therefore important that this matter be discussed in detail in Parliament, so that the facts may be clearly presented and argued.
Although it is an emotive and complex issue, I hope that we can debate the matter in a dispassionate and reasonable manner; in a broadsheet rather than a tabloid fashion. I hope that we can reach a clear view of the way forward, and that we can balance the understandable desires of our farmers to supply a real demand for live meat on the continent with the need to have the highest possible levels of animal welfare; that we can balance our needs as a meat-eating species to raise animals for slaughter with our responsibility to be wise and caring stewards of all other creatures; and, finally, that we can balance the need to support the dairy industry and the livelihoods of our farmers with widespread public concern about animal welfare.
On Saturday night, at Millbay docks in Plymouth, two cattle lorries arrived and boarded a privately chartered ferry bound for the continent. The lorries carried calves and sheep, and came from farms throughout the south of England. Standing at the gates of Millbay docks with banners, 200 to 300 people were shouting and screaming their protests as the lorries swept through. The police were there in force to ensure that the protesters did not prevent the lorries from entering the docks.
Once inside the docks, the cattle and sheep were inspected by the vet who accompanied them on their entire journey. They were inspected by Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food officials, and by representatives of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, all of whom gave the cattle and sheep a clean bill of health. Once inspected, the lorries boarded the ship, and the ship left.
I recently visited Millbay docks, and spoke to the vet and RSPCA representatives, who confirmed their opinion that the sheep and cattle were not in distress. Yet many of the protesters were in tears; many were simply angry. They are an embodiment of an outpouring of concern that has grown from all corners of our society.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Is my hon. Friend able to assist me by reconciling the view of the chairman of the Sussex police authority in my area, who calls this trade barbaric, and thinks that it should be stopped, with the view expressed by his colleague, the Liberal Democrat agriculture spokesman in this place, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who described the activities of protesters as "naive, hysterical and counterproductive"?

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is important that we approach this issue from a consistent position, and that, wherever possible, we say the same thing.
I ask myself, who are the demonstrators? Some are retired civil servants, some are teachers, some are housewives, some are students. Most of them care genuinely about the welfare of animals, and are prepared to stand in the cold and the rain night after night to make their protests. That picture is repeated almost daily all over the country. Many people want to stop the export of live animals from the United Kingdom to the continent for slaughter. They believe it to be a cruel and unnecessary practice. They care, they are committed and they are to be respected for their compassion and their concern.
Some of the people at the demonstrations have a different motivation. They are members of Class War or the Animal Liberation Front, and are there to cause trouble and pursue their own agenda, whatever that might be. I shall say more about them later, but the first question that I want to explore this morning is: why do we not ban the export of live animals, which causes so much distress to some many people?
The first reason is a legal one. Article 36 of the treaty of Rome—with its clause allowing restrictions on imports and exports on the grounds of public morality, public policy or the protection of the life and health of animals—is not applicable, because there is an existing EC directive on animal welfare standards. That EC directive does not deal adequately with the provision for feeding, watering, journey times and other matters, but it exists, and it prevents any member state from taking unilateral national action.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Gentleman is making an eminently sensible contribution to the debate, and I am sure that many of us support what he has said. Will he condemn the actions of his hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), who deliberately set out to destroy the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)? Will the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) condemn the actions of his hon. Friend, who prevented Parliament from dealing with an issue that the great majority of people in this country wanted to be addressed?

Mr. Streeter: I entirely reject the hon. Gentleman's comments. At the beginning of my speech, I said that we should address the issues, not in tabloid terms, but objectively and sensibly. I refute what the hon. Gentleman said.
If we were to proceed with a ban on exports, the European Commission would take the United Kingdom Government to the European Court of Justice to have such a unilateral ban swiftly reversed. In the meantime, UK farmers would rightly claim for compensation against our Government for damages suffered as a consequence of unlawful action. It is simply not an option.

Mr. Tony Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for missing the opening moments of his speech.
Surely, if the Government were prepared, unilaterally, to institute a ban, it could be tested in the European Court. There is a body of opinion which says that, as European law is untested in many spheres, that would be a worthwhile step. At least the Government could then say that they had done their best, but were overturned by the European Court. At present, the Government seem to stand between the people and the European Court, frustrating the wishes of the people of this country.

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Government have had the benefit of legal advice from the best legal minds in the country. Were I asked to choose between the hon. Gentleman's legal opinion and that of the best legal minds in the country, I would go with the latter every time.
The same is true of veal crates as of banning exports. We fought hard in 1990 and 1991 to impose a Communitywide ban on veal crates when formulating the EC directive on the subject. However, the European Union adopted a lesser measure in 1991. Our Government secured a provision allowing member states to adopt stricter standards.
We chose to adopt stricter standards, and effectively—and rightly—banned veal crates from our shores. It is cruel and unacceptable to keep a calf in a crate in which it cannot turn around or groom itself. But it is not possible to ban the export from the UK of calves that end up in veal crates. An existing EC directive covers the matter, and such a measure would be doomed to failure. It is simply not possible to ignore the legal realities and seek a unilateral ban, however much Opposition Members might object.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Was my hon. Friend encouraged to see Brigitte Bardot demonstrating in Paris and attacking the French Government for their poor, but improving, attitude? Would it not help the important cause of animal welfare if Brigitte Bardot or her equivalents did the same in Greece, Spain and other countries, thus providing better support for the excellent attitudes of this country and our Government?

Mr. Streeter: Unlike my predecessor in the House, I do not know Brigitte Bardot personally.

Madam Speaker: Pity.

Mr. Streeter: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Greenway) has anticipated later sections of my speech on the importance of approaching the problem Europewide, and mobilising public opinion throughout Europe, so that standards of animal welfare throughout Europe become as high as they are in this country.
It is likely that measures banning or restricting the export of calves would constitute an unacceptable interference with the operation of the common agricultural policy as it affects the market for beef and veal.

Mr. Eric Martlew: The hon. Gentleman is discussing the legality of a ban. Perhaps he will support me in asking the Minister to place the legal advice in the House of Commons Library so that we can look at it. My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked the Minister to do that, but the Minister refused.

Mr. Streeter: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister has heard the hon. Gentleman's point. It is a long-standing convention that the Government do not disclose their legal advice, or even whether they have taken legal advice from a certain source. I see no reason to change that convention in this case.
My first question was whether it would be possible, legally, to ban the export of live animals and veal calves. It is not. My second question is: even if the ban of the export of live animals were legal and possible, would it be desirable? What would be the result of such a ban? Surely our concern should be for animals everywhere, not just restricted to our shores.
If our farmers, employing decent standards, were not able to supply the demand in southern European states, someone else would. Let us be under no illusions—it would almost certainly be the east European nations, which raise animals in far worse conditions than we do. That would set back the cause of animal welfare by decades. Fewer sheep and cattle would be produced in the United Kingdom, where we have decent standards and transport animals in humane conditions. More sheep and cattle would be produced elsewhere, in poorer conditions, and transported under lower welfare standards.
Such a ban would not help the cause of animal welfare, but diminish it. There is nothing intrinsically cruel about transporting animals in a lorry. I draw upon my experience of being brought up on a dairy farm. I have been surrounded by sheep and cattle all my life—nothing changes.

Mr. Jim Cunningham: I hope that, as the hon. Gentleman develops his interesting speech, he will comment on the air transport of live animals. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, an animal rights campaigner in my constituency was recently killed. It is an emotive subject. The vast majority of animal rights campaigners are decent people, but there is always a minority of troublemakers. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on air transport, particularly in relation to noise levels and how they affect residents living in areas such as mine in Willenhall in Coventry?

Mr. Streeter: I shall talk about the demonstrators in a moment. I see no significant difference between transporting cattle and sheep in a lorry and other forms of transportation, provided the same standards apply. I have not inspected the aeroplanes in which those cattle are transported, so I have less knowledge of that. I am satisfied by what at I see at Millbay docks in Plymouth that such transportation is not intrinsically cruel.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman says that we should participate in the trade because, if we do not, others—perhaps from eastern


Europe—may do so, and do so cruelly. But the reason that we have a law banning veal crates in this country is because they are cruel, immoral and unacceptable.
If the hon. Gentleman says that we should transport animals to a state that is cruel, immoral and unacceptable because we want to make profits rather than let others do so, does not his argument undermine the basis of law in this country, which bans that cruelty? The hon. Gentleman cannot say that we should allow animals to enter such a state simply because we would rather make the profits rather than allow someone else to do so.

Mr. Streeter: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me in his long speech. If he will be patient, I shall deal with that precise point in a moment.
Provided that the appropriate conditions are in place and are monitored effectively, the journey to the slaughterhouse need not cause distress. In January, the Government introduced even tougher restrictions on our farmers, which require each exporter to comply with an approved journey plan. If we withdraw from the debate and seek to impose a unilateral ban, irrespective of the legal consequences that would follow, we would surely lose our voice in Europe on the issue just when people are beginning to listen to us about animal welfare.
I believe that the decision by the Council of Ministers last night to discuss the issue again in a month shows that people are beginning to fall in behind us on the issue, and that there is a real chance that progress will be made. For those reasons, I simply do not believe that a general ban on exports—if it were legal—would help the cause of animal welfare generally, and it would not be desirable.
I am bound to ask what impact a general ban on live exports would have on the dairy industry. Male calves are an unavoidable by-product of the dairy industry. We cannot ignore the laws of nature: a dairy cow will produce the milk from which we derive our dairy products only if she has a calf each year. Farmers must do something with male calves.
It would be convenient to believe that they could be sold for veal in the United Kingdom, but the domestic market is simply too limited. If farmers are left to fatten calves for beef, a huge increase in the amount of beef on the market would destabilise the farming industry and the common agricultural policy.
Farmers could be forced to slaughter calves within days of their birth—I think that that is a strange argument to come from people who are concerned about animal welfare—but that would be an unaffordable expense for farmers unless they were subsidised by public money for every calf slaughtered. There is no doubt that an immediate ban would threaten the economic viability of our dairy industry, to no avail. UK farmers would pay the price, animals would not benefit and eastern European farmers would laugh all the way to the bank.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Such a ban was imposed by the Conservative Government in 1974, and in 1975 the then Labour Government reversed that decision. Does my hon. Friend have any idea why Labour Members now suggest that the policy should be changed to reverse their original decision?

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I said earlier, it is important that hon. Members do not play to the gallery, but have the courage of their convictions on the issue.
Some of those who are protesting at Millbay docks and elsewhere are vegans and vegetarians. They do not eat meat themselves, and they do not wish to see others eat meat. They represent about 5 per cent. of the population of this country. Joyce DeSilva and Peter Stevenson of Compassion In World Farming are strong vegans. I respect that, but it is not right that people who have such an unnatural agenda should seek to impose their views on the rest of us.
I do not need to debate the morality of eating meat. I have no moral qualms about it and I am joined in that view by more than 90 per cent. of the population. If the vegans and vegetarians had their way, there would be no dairy industry at all in this country, which would devastate our economic and rural landscape. It is a dangerous agenda, and we should firmly reject it.

Sir Andrew Bowden: I apologise to my hon. Friend for not being present to hear the earlier part of his speech. On his last point, it is true that the vast majority of those who are demonstrating against the export of veal calves eat meat themselves. I see nothing wrong with that. Surely my hon. Friend agrees that we have a responsibility to treat animals decently while they are being prepared for the table, and to kill them painlessly, instead of allowing them to spend six months of living hell in a veal crate?

Mr. Streeter: Obviously my hon. Friend did not hear the first part of my speech, which was devoted entirely to that very point.
I have dealt with the fact that the vast majority of demonstrators are genuine, decent people, and I have paid a great tribute to them. However, some of the protesters are not nice people. Some extremists, whose primary concern is to disrupt society, have jumped on the bandwagon. Some of that group claim to care about animal welfare, but they show a complete disregard for human life, which gives the lie to their claims.
I shall refer to some brief extracts from recent newspaper reports. An article by Emma Wilkins, which appeared in The Times of 4 February 1995, said:
Animal-rights demonstrations at ports and airports are being infiltrated by violent militants intent on criminal activity, a senior police officer said yesterday.
Mick Brewer, acting Deputy Chief Constable of Warwickshire Police, said that the peaceful protests at Coventry airport against the export of veal calves had been sabotaged by activists who had their own aims.
'I think it is clear that we are seeing an influx of criminally minded people who are operating off the back of a peaceful demonstration,' Mr. Brewer said. `After the tragic accident, our officers began to notice new faces in the crowd at the airport. Their technique is often to hide behind the peaceful demonstrators and egg them on'.
Mr. Brewer has discussed the policing of demonstrations with his opposite number at Devon and Cornwall Police. Violence has broken out at Plymouth docks. 'I think we are being targeted by the same type of individuals,' Mr. Brewer said".
An article from The Sunday Times of 8 January 1995 by Mark Christy and Andrew Alderson, contains an interview with Michelle Ratcliffe, 27. She is
a self-styled black Boadicea of the anarchist movement, is typical of the hard-core elements who have hijacked the demonstration for political motives and who have left respectable protesters"—
the people about whom my hon. Friend is concerned—


questioning their own involvement. 'These animals are being tortured,' she said. 'We are tooled up with baseball bats and other weapons and are prepared to defend them'.
Ratcliffe conceded, however, that she and her companions from the Justice Department, the anarchic group, were 'not particularly concerned about the animals. We are here to fight for social justice … I'm so angry with what's happening here I would kill the police to achieve our ends'.
Ratcliffe, who travelled from her home in Brixton, south London, with Stu Johnson, 24, her white, dread-locked boyfriend, has protested previously"—
this will be no great surprise to my hon. Friends—
against the poll tax, the Criminal Justice Bill and new roads. Many of the protests have culminated in violence. 'We like to steam in and sabotage a bit. The police are indiscriminately beating people up, and we are not just going to stand there and take it. We fight back,' says Ratcliffe … 'There are more of us now so the police will get trashed'".
They are not nice people. A very sinister picture is beginning to emerge from some of the demonstrations. We must not be deflected by violent extremists who are seeking to hijack the issue. The rule of law, not mob rule, must prevail in this nation.
I pay tribute to the police, who have done a tremendous job in protecting those who seek to go about their lawful trade. In so doing, the police express no opinion about the export of animals. Individual officers may be for or against it, but the police will protect any person equally against any assailant. I find it deeply reassuring that in this country, even in the face of the most ferocious attack, one person will always come forward to help—the uniformed policeman.
Some irresponsible voices have said that the police should not prevent the demonstrators from stopping the export of animals, or that farmers should pay the cost of deploying the police. But that is a very dangerous road to tread. If law-abiding citizens must pay the police for protection in going about their lawful business, the police force will become nothing more than a privatised security force which protects the interests of the highest bidder.
The police are a neutral force, who look to preserve public peace by safeguarding the laws of this country. If demonstrations were peaceful and non-threatening, there would be no need for such a heavy police presence. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the export of live animals, the outcome must be determined according to the rule of law.
What can we do? I hope that I have shown that it is neither possible nor wholly desirable to ban the export of live animals from the United Kingdom. It would not improve the cause of animal welfare as a whole. It is also clear that it is simply not possible to ban the export of calves to the veal crate trade, much though I would like to see that happen.
Nonetheless, there is a clear way forward. We must shift the focus of attention away from unilateral action in the United Kingdom, and mobilise public opinion throughout Europe in favour of wider measures in support of animals. That is the greater prize that is within our grasp: to see standards of animal welfare in Spain, Greece, Italy and elsewhere throughout the Community brought up to the high standards of animal welfare here.
We must do two things to achieve that aim. First, we must maintain and increase pressure on member states through the institutions of the European Union. That is

why I welcome the diplomatic mission upon which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has recently embarked. She is going from capital to capital throughout the continent, seeking to persuade her European colleagues that the veal crate trade should be abolished. I can think of no one more persuasive or better qualified to lead that charge than my hon. Friend.
I would ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to state what progress my hon. Friend has made in her challenging and worthwhile mission.

Mr. Robert Key: My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is not just doing that. She is also calling a conference on Friday of farmers and retailers of veal to encourage the development of a new market for veal in this country, so that our farmers can get the added value, instead of those involved in transport and foreign rearers.

Mr. Streeter: There is no limit to the initiatives being produced my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in support of British farmers and the cause of animal welfare throughout the EU. She deserves our congratulations, as does my right hon. Friend the Minister on his success in moving the question of veal crates up the Euro-agenda. Whereas the matter was due to be discussed in 1997 by the Council of Ministers, it is very much to my right hon. Friend's credit that the matter has been discussed this year, and that positive steps are being taken.
I understand that the Commission has already started work on a scientific report on the directive on the welfare of calves, which is the first stage of the Council's veal crate provisions. Let us hope that that scientific report recommends the banning of this trade. It would be an enormous tribute to my right hon. Friend's efforts if the veal crate trade could be abolished throughout Europe in the next 12 months.
It is also vital that the Government continue to press our European colleagues to adopt stricter feeding and watering intervals, the licensing of hauliers—with provisions for disqualificatvion—and a journey limit for animals travelling to slaughter. While it was disappointing that no resolution could be found on the matter at the Council this week, I would be interested to hear from my right hon. Friend what progress has been made.

Mr. Robert Hicks: Is it not a fact that, if the shadow spokesman for agriculture, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), held the position of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods, he would find himself in an identical situation to that of my right hon. Friend? At least the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East understands that position, having been—unlike many of his colleagues, including those on the Front Bench—in both government and opposition.

Mr. Streeter: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) says in his speech that he entirely accepts my right hon. Friend's position.
It may well be that the introduction of proper welfare standards in the transportation of animals throughout Europe will not be achieved in the short term, but it is a much more valuable prize than any unilateral action could ever be. I am certain that it is the right way forward. One of the reasons why a pan-European approach would be so


effective is that, as more countries join the European Union in the future, so they will have to comply in full with the stringent requirements on animal welfare. That means that an ever-increasing number of animals would be brought within the better conditions.
The enforcement of EC directives—we in the south-west know that that is difficult—is only achievable on a Communitywide basis. We have all been horrified by the videos of what goes on in some slaughterhouses in Spain and Greece, and those are already in contravention of EC directives. A far greater emphasis on enforcement must he given by the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. My right hon. Friend might mention in his speech the question of enforcement.
Many of us criticise the institutions of the European Union—I think, often with good cause—but here is a situation where the machinery of state of the European Union can be put to good use to produce a Communitywide solution which we could not possibly achieve on our own.
In preparing my speech, I have recognised how restricted we are in taking our own decisions in agricultural policy; but this is perhaps one of the areas in which membership of the European Union can be used to our advantage. Who knows—we might even be able to use qualified majority voting to force the southern European nations to come to heel.
The final way to tackle the issue is by an extension of people power. Attention drawn to the issue of animal exports by demonstrators has unleashed a powerful surge of public concern in this country. It is now time for that concern and energy to be harnessed in the most effective way. It is time to take the protests to Europe. I call on the lobby groups involved in the battle to mobilise public concern throughout Europe, and to take the arguments to Europe in a lawful and peaceful way.
If there are to be demonstrations, let them be in Brussels and Strasbourg, or outside the slaughterhouses of Greece and Spain. Let letters of protest be written to the Italian and Portuguese Members of Parliament. It is time that the European Parliament, and its ruling party, took a closer interest in this subject, and started applying pressure wherever it can. Let it be a voice for change within Europe. Here is an issue on which the European Parliament can make a positive name for itself.
In conclusion, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all he has done in furthering the cause of animal welfare. I seek assurances that he will continue his crusade to improve welfare and standards throughout Europe by putting pressure on other Council Ministers and institutions.
I call upon all those who are genuinely interested in the subject of animal welfare—not the extremists and anarchists, but genuine people—to lift their sights and take their arguments to Europe. They must seize the greater prize which lies within our grasp; not a unilateral action, which would be so unproductive, but a secure future for the welfare of animals across the whole of Europe, once and for all.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. There is obviously a great deal of interest in this subject, and that is very good. May I appeal to Members now to speak for about 10 or 12 minutes, so I may call as many as possible?

Mr. Eric Martlew: May I first declare that I am not a vegetarian? I worked for 21 years in the dairy industry, and I am qualified as a dairying chemist, so I do know a little about the industry.
I was a little disturbed by the speech of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), because he seemed to be saying that there is nothing we can do about the matter, that it is all to do with Europe. The first person to say something like that was Pontius Pilate.
I am glad at last to have the opportunity to speak on the transportation of calves, because I want to talk about calves which are sent to the veal crates. I believe that that needs to be stopped, and I believe that this country could do it.
Unfortunately, the only thing which has been stopped so far is my Protection of Calves (Export) Bill, which was due to be given Second Reading on 3 February. The Bill was blocked by the cynical methods of the hon. Members for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), whom I am glad to see in his place, and for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Heald), whom I am glad to see sitting behind the Minister of Agriculture. It is my understanding that the hon. Gentleman is the Minister's parliamentary private secretary. I do not wish to dwell on that matter.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman said that he was solely addressing the issue of calves. Is he not addressing the issue of sheep and other livestock exports?

Mr. Martlew: My view is that there is a clear argument for this country to institute a unilateral ban on the transportation of calves, and we have a legal right to do that. It would be more difficult to do that with regard to sheep or other cattle.
Hon. Members should realise that we have taken unilateral action in the past. Four years ago, there was an outcry about the transportation of horses for slaughter, and some 250,000 letters were written to the then Minister of Agriculture. The outcry was such that we banned the transportation. No one said that it was illegal, but we found an excuse, and we banned it. That went against all the concepts of free trade.

Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman unequivocally confirm that his private Member's Bill has the full and public support of his own Front-Bench team?

Mr. Martlew: I am sure that they will reply to that. My understanding is that their views are similar to mine. Doubtless they are in favour of banning the transportation of calves destined for veal crates.
I shall not dwell on the behaviour of certain Members of Parliament on the occasion in question—[Interruption.]—or on the antics of the Tory yob element today. It is enough to say that their behaviour did no credit to this House.
As for my reasons for wanting to ban exports of calves to the continent: in 1994 we exported 500,000 calves, mainly to the veal crate system.

Mr. Ian Bruce: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has on a number of occasions levelled accusations of filibustering at us, and


has just described us as "the yob element". Surely that cannot be in order, the more so as he will not give way to us to allow the truth of the matter to be told.

Madam Speaker: I think that temperatures in this House are rising too high at this time of the morning. This is an important issue; I want it to be debated properly. If there are a lot of interventions, hon. Members will not be called—it is as simple as that. Hon. Members should therefore use a little common sense and allow Members to speak for 10 or 12 minutes. That way, they will all be called.

Mr. Martlew: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Most of the calves that we exported in 1994 were destined for veal crates, a system banned in this country in 1990, although the regulations went through the House in 1987.
The fact is that this is a relatively new trade, and the idea that the dairy industry would be devastated without it is incorrect. In 1986, we exported fewer than 200,000 calves. The dairy industry has simply taken advantage of the high prices on the continent.
We banned the trade in 1990 because it was cruel. We decided that it cannot be right to incarcerate young calves for five months in a system that does not allow them to turn around or lie down. They are fed an unnatural diet, kept in semi-darkness and often tethered, before being slaughtered, because the continentals prefer white veal.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: This whole House is greatly opposed to the rearing of calves in crates. That is why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is trying to convert her colleagues on the continent to pink veal, which is not cruelly produced.
The hon. Gentleman referred earlier to unilateral action on the export of horses. In fact, we imposed a minimum price. That was not illegal; it was accepted by others and it had the same effect. The current proposals could be illegal and are likely to be reversed immediately, thus offering only a short-term solution, whereas we want a long-term solution.

Mr. Martlew: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point that the banning of exports of veal calves may or may not be legal. In the case of live horse exports, the action taken was merely a pretext. The fact is that it has never been challenged in the European Court, because the Europeans know that we will not stand for the exporting of horses for slaughter.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Martlew: I am afraid that I must move on.
The campaign against veal crating is overwhelming. No one should delude himself that it will disappear into the bureaucracy of Europe. The vast majority of the people I have met at various ports are good, honest citizens—many of them have never demonstrated before, and most of them are former Tory voters.
These people are looking for a parliamentary solution. Many of the demonstrators are rather bemused by the antics of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. He condemns the demonstrators in the same way as the hooligans at the Dublin football match are condemned—he calls them the hooligan element. But when they demonstrate in Brussels, he shakes hands with them and

tells them what a splendid job they are doing—even though they are often the same people who demonstrated at our air and sea ports.
It is nonsense to condemn them at home and congratulate them abroad. We are, however, used to the Minister being somewhat two-faced—

Madam Speaker: Order. I really do think that we are going too far with this personal abuse at this time of the morning.

Mr. Martlew: I withdraw it, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. He is usually a good debater and parliamentarian.

Mr. Martlew: I am grateful. We are used to seeing the Minister deploying double standards. He says that he hates and opposes the veal crate system, yet until a few months ago he was allowing calves from his own farm to go to market to be sent on to veal crates.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): As the hon. Gentleman has lowered the tone of this debate by his personal abuse, I remind him that the management of my farm is in the hands of his—not yet right hon.—Friend, the spokesman on agriculture in the House of Lords. He might like to address his question to him.

Mr. Martlew: Once again, the Minister seems to be saying that he owns the calves but that what happens to them has nothing to do with him. I do not accept that.
Let us take a look at the exporters, and in particular at the leader of the exporters, Mr. Richard Otley. He was recently described to me by a senior police officer at Brightlingsea as a right-wing fascist. The man has a record of cruelty to animals, he claims to have personal influence with the Prime Minister, and I understand that he has been asked by a Welsh Conservative association to stand as a parliamentary candidate.
There are good legal arguments on which the Government can rely if they want to prohibit the exporting of calves to veal crates. There is strong veterinary evidence that the EC calves directive is wholly inadequate in the protection it affords calves—it sanctions the continued use of crates, for instance. As such, it could be argued that the directive fails properly to occupy the field, and is thus no bar to a United Kingdom export ban.

Mr. Roger Knapman: A few moments ago, the hon. Gentleman said that his Bill seeks the imposition of a unilateral ban, but he seemed a little less sure whether he had the support of his Front Benchers on that matter—no doubt they will clarify that later. Labour's policy paper on animal transportation suggests that the hon. Gentleman does not have their support:
We will seek a ban through the European Commission and the Council of Ministers".
If that is Labour's policy, surely it makes the Front Benchers' attitude to the hon. Gentleman's Bill crystal clear?

Mr. Martlew: The hon. Gentleman is confused. I am talking about this country's right to ban the exporting of calves to veal crates—

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Martlew: I have said that I cannot give way any more.
Secondly, unusually for an EC directive, the calves directive imposes only minimum standards, and expressly allows a member state to maintain stricter standards. The "occupied field" principle notwithstanding, it could be argued that, when a member state lawfully maintains stricter rearing requirements under a minimum directive, as Britain has done, it is then entitled to rely on article 36 in declining to send animals to other parts of the EU for rearing in the very system that has been declared unlawful in its own country.
A minimum standards directive should not be viewed as occupying a field in the same way as a normal directive. Unlike the more usual kind of directive, a minimum standards directive does not purport to say all that can be said on a particular matter. It does not fully occupy the field; rather, it recognises the legitimate right of member states to establish stricter provisions.
Surely this is a matter of political will, not of law alone. I am convinced, however, from my experience, that there is no political will. When I introduced my Bill, I expected all-party support. There was a problem in my constituency at the airport, and the local councillors, from one end of the political spectrum to the other, voted against the export of calves for veal. Unfortunately, the Minister was opposed to that approach from the outset.
I wrote to the Minister on 3 January asking for an urgent meeting to discuss my Bill. I wanted to talk things through, and to ascertain whether it would be possible to get the Bill into Committee. There would then have been discussions with the farming lobby.
The Minister did not reply. Eventually, I phoned his office. I made the call a fortnight after writing. I was told that the right hon. Gentleman was too busy to see me. He could not see me, but I was told that the Parliamentary Secretary could. On two occasions, the hon. Lady cancelled meetings with me. One of the cancellations was at short notice. I was told by a member of her private office that she was in Europe on the day when she was to meet me. She was due to meet me at 6 pm. At 6.20 pm, the hon. Lady walked into the House and said that she was going to a meeting.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Angela Browning): As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, we had, unfortunately, to cancel the meeting. When I saw him in the evening of the day when we were to meet, I had been in Europe. He will know that one can travel to Europe and back within a day these days. When he saw me, I was in the middle of a meeting in the House. I went to the Members' Entrance to collect some documents. I offered the hon. Gentleman an appointment before his Bill was due to be heard. He declined to see me.

Mr. Martlew: It is strange that the hon. Lady had a meeting a 6.20 pm when she was due to meet me at 6 pm. It is obvious that something was going on.
As I have said, the Minister refused to see me. The Parliamentary Secretary cancelled two meetings. On the day when my Bill was debated, they sent the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chamber to run the filibuster to block my Bill. It is obvious that that was done with the knowledge—

Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been suggested that I have

engaged in filibustering. You ruled that I had not, Madam Speaker, and that nothing untoward had occurred. Is it acceptable for such suggestions to continue?

Madam Speaker: Members are responsible for their comments.
The House will appreciate that I provided three hours for the debate. A number of Members had written to me because of the seriousness of the subject. I felt it was one that deserved the full three hours that the House allows me to give for such a debate. I hope that we shall debate the subject, and not personalities, with the seriousness that the House should adopt when approaching extremely important matters in which all our constituents are interested.

Mr. Martlew: If there are no more interruptions, Madam Speaker, I shall come to a conclusion quickly.
The argument is whether we can ban calves going to the veal crates in Europe. In my opinion, we can. The Minister has never said that it would be illegal to introduce a ban. He said in his letter of 1 February that it was likely to be illegal. The Parliamentary Secretary stated in a letter to The Times that it was likely to be illegal. But they are not prepared to say categorically that such a ban would be illegal. The transportation of live animals raises difficulties, but it is my view that we could take unilateral action.
The idea that we shall lose our way in the bureaucracy of Brussels and that the demonstrators will go away is nonsense. We have seen the Minister's failure over the past two days to get any movement in Brussels. The idea that the southern Europeans will suddenly change their minds and allow the European Community to ban veal crates is nonsense. We all know that. We must take action soon. We must have debates with the farming industry to ascertain how we can help it. At the end of the day, the cruel trade that we are debating must stop.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (M r. William Waldegrave): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on securing the debate and on a sensible and level-headed speech in introducing it. I associate myself with a good deal of what he said.
I think that we all recognise the width and depth of concern in the United Kingdom about these issues. They are famously, I guess, the easiest subjects on which to stir the British people. If a Member wants to increase his mailbag, the answer is to raise the subject of animal welfare. In one sense, it is a tribute to our country. When emotions are so easily stirred, however, it is incumbent on us to try to tell people clearly what the situation is and not to play on emotions. These are emotions easier to stir than to calm.
Some of my criticisms of one or two of those who have offered their advice on these matters do not mean that I doubt their intentions, which I am sure are good. I merely say that it lies on us all in the House and outside to direct energies in a way that does not lead to frustration.

Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman. I shall observe the advice that has been given by Madam Speaker that my speech should not continue for too long.

Mr. Banks: I am surprised that the Minister has intervened at this stage. I hoped that he would listen to the


debate and then respond to the various points raised by hon. Members. Will the Parliamentary Secretary respond to the debate? We want some ministerial responses on points that are likely to be made during it.

Mr. Waldegrave: I thought that it would be helpful to the House if I were to intervene relatively early in the debate. After about six months of argument about these matters, we are reasonably clear about the principal lines of argument. It seemed that it would be helpful if the Government were to give a reasonably authoritative answer. Many hon. Members will seek to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. If I am allowed a short intervention at a later stage on any particular point with which I do not deal properly now, I shall seek to make it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is not the way in which these debates should be conducted.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman says from his great wisdom that what I have suggested is not the way in which these debates are conducted. I have spoken in a good many such debates over the years. It is often of help to the House for a Minister to speak at a relatively early stage, and I shall do so this morning.
Let us deal with the history of the matter, but not too much. It goes back quite a long way. Concern about the export of live animals goes right back to the 1950s. Lord Balfour of Burleigh was asked to undertake a report in the 1950s. The result was the setting up of a system of mutual agreements between this country—this was long before we were in the Community—and others. The system was aimed at satisfying people in Britain that, when live animals were exported, welfare standards would be satisfactory. There was a series of bilateral agreements.
In the early 1970s, when a Conservative Government were in office, there was concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House about the continuing trade of live animals. There was an occasion when Conservative Back-Bench Members joined Opposition Members and overruled the advice of the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I do not think that there was a vote, but there was great pressure on the Minister. As a result, he agreed that he would stop the trade and call for a report. The result was Lord O'Brien's report. In those days, the Minister was fully entitled to take that course in the absence of Community law.
Lord O'Brien reported. He found that there was no reason why the trade, properly regulated, should not continue. He observed that there were being put in place a number of Europewide controls—not as many as are in place today, but some were being introduced. The trade restarted after a free vote in the House. Many Conservative Members and some Opposition Members, including the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on agriculture, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang), voted to reopen the trade, as did the present Commissioner with responsibilities for transport in the European Community. I think that it was perfectly sensible of them to do so.
It behoves Opposition Members, however, if they are serious about putting themselves forward for government, to remember what it feels like when in government. The point has already been made. They will be subject to exactly the same constraints. They will be having exactly the same arguments, probably, with their own troublesome

Back-Bench Members. We all have them. [Interruption.] I apologise for that slip. I cannot think what I was talking about.
Labour Members would sometimes have to say some unwelcome things to well-intentioned and powerfully motivated Back Benchers on their own side. One of the things that they would have to say—

Mr. Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: I cannot think how I could have stirred my hon. Friend into action.

Mr. Jenkin: However much sympathy the House may have with the objectives of the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) to ban calve exports, is it not the case that, even if it became law, my right hon. Friend would not be able to act, because if he acted contrary to European Community law he could be prosecuted and sued by those who had suffered financial loss as a result of obeying that Bill instead of Community law, as Community law overrides Acts of Parliament that have been passed by the United Kingdom Parliament?

Mr. Waldegrave: I do not know whether it would be me who would be personally sued, but if we passed law that laid us open to damages in the European Court, the Government would have to pay damages. My hon. Friend points that out as though it were something new and astonishing. When we signed the Single European Act, with support from both sides of the House—including many who are known as Euro-sceptics—we were establishing, for the great benefit of this country, a single market. In certain areas, we said that, if the single market is to be maintained, there must be European law to maintain it. That is how we have harried European airlines and European steel companies to get rid of illegal subsidies. That is how we have just managed to get illegal pig support systems in France and illegal mushroom subsidies in Ireland stopped. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander—if I may make an agricultural analogy.
On this matter, I make no apology whatever for saying that the House and, I believe, the majority of those within my party, understood that, when we established the single market, there would be some common European rules, and sometimes they would not always be convenient to us. The judgment was—I think that it is shared by hon. Members on both sides of the House—that, over all, the maintenance of the single market is immensely in the benefit of the United Kingdom, as it is in the benefit of Europe as a whole. I do not think that on this occasion my hon. Friend points to anything particularly new. We knew that there would be rules.
Let us come further forward in history. The decision was taken at the time of the establishment of the single market that we must have better welfare rules for the transportation of animals. That subject was addressed. It was particularly important to us because our licensing arrangements, which involved inspection at the national borders, and so on, had to end because we were moving into the single market. The Community quite rightly said that we could not just dismantle all that and do nothing; we had to have proper standards of transport.
That argument is continuing. Although the Commission made proposals in, I think, 1992 or 1993, they have not yet been agreed. We came near to an agreement last summer, when my predecessor who is now the Secretary of State for


Education was Minister, but we rightly judged that the compromise offer—known in the trade as the Greek compromise—was not satisfactory, because it did not contain the concept of journey limits. There must be a definition of when a journey ends. One cannot just say that there will be a limit of five, 10 or 15 hours. One must define it. There must be a time scale after which it is a new journey, and it must be a long time scale to be meaningful.
The French compromise, which we have been discussing in the past two days, was 12 hours. I do not believe that that is a satisfactory compromise. I do not believe that the House would regard a journey that had been restarted again after 12 hours as a separate journey. I judged that it would be a continuation of the same journey. There must be a longer gap than that.
I have said that three days is a proper gap between journeys, because by then the stress level of the animals has gone right down again, and it probably is a new journey. The Dutch have said that it should be a little bit less than that. One must have a definition of what one means by a journey limit. No journey limit is allowed at present in European law.

Mr. Tony Banks: What about Germany?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is why, incidentally, the Germans, who have passed in their Parliament an eight-hour journey limit, will find that they will be struck down. They have already been challenged by other countries and have had to suspend it.
The hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) did not hit the tone of the House quite right today, because we are trying to discuss important and emotional issues in, I hope, a reasonably objective way. If he thinks that this is all Tory villainy on this side, he has not studied the history of the matter. He would be in precisely the same position. It is quite dangerous, if the hon. Gentleman is serious about seeking to win the next election, to build up expectations that he cannot meet. He should think a little bit that his party might conceivably be in power—I hope that it will not be—but if he has pinned it to saying all sorts of things that are then shown to be false, he will make the situation much worse.
It is perfectly clear that one cannot unilaterally introduce journey limits. There is no capacity in European law at present to do that. That is why we must introduce that principle. It is also clear, as I think the hon. Member for Carlisle made clear in his speech, that he knows very well that we could not have a unilateral ban on live exports. He accepted that, because he said that it may well be a bit more difficult to do that—which, I think, is parliamentary language for saying that it would be completely impossible in this circumstance; otherwise, he would be pushing on that as well.
The legal argument is hardly worth entering into, because no one who has looked at it—certainly not Opposition Front-Bench Members, I believe, having read their document—thinks that the extent of interference with the single market and the common agricultural policy would survive for a moment as a legal judgment. It would not be a matter of long argument in the European Court. It would simply be prevented straight away.
We have acted to prevent the illegal German ban on the importation of British beef under the bovine spongiform encephalopathy rules. The scientific evidence in the Community has been translated into rational law and the

German Government have had to abandon their unilateral objection to it, quite rightly. That is another example of where the same kind of legal pressures, which, sometimes, we complain about here, work greatly to our advantage.
I hope that I need not detain the House for long on the legal cases that prevent us from having a total ban on the export of livestock. That really is not conceivable, but I will not hide behind that. What is more, I do not think that it would be right to argue that even if we could do it. I am entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton, who opened the debate, and with many other hon. Members and people outside, who say that we must take action to maximise exports of meat, as opposed to live animals. It is already 80 per cent. of the trade by value and it can go up—in sheepmeat, perhaps, most easily.
I know that some of the livestock slaughterers who deal with sheep are hiring French butchers and bringing them over so that French purchasers get the precise cuts they want. That is very intelligent work to do, and we shall be promoting that with the Meat and Livestock Commission and thinking of further things that we can do. We have some money available, in marketing grants, and so on, to help that to develop.
Even if we can do so—I am sure that we can—I do not think that it would be rational or responsible to say to British farmers, "You are going to be the only farmers in Europe who are not allowed to transport any animals across your boundaries." That would be madness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton said, quoting perfectly correctly the advice of vets—and, by the sound of it, a Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals vet or official—that is not based on any science, either. It is perfectly possible to move animals across 25 miles of water, as long as the conditions are proper, the trucks are right and the people are trained properly.
We must not drift into a position of saying that, if we could, we would ban the export of all animals. We would not. No Government would. It would be crazy to do that. What is more, it would create acute difficulties for Northern Ireland, Scotland and internally in Britain. If one says that animals cannot be moved more than a few miles without stopping, I do not know how sheep farmers—for example, in Cumbria—will carry out their winter pasturing, and so on. We must be a little careful in saying that.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What are the unsurmountable difficulties in amending legislation so that animals can be transported by rail through the channel tunnel?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is always best, when one does not know the answer to a question, to say so. Therefore, I say that I do not know what the unsurmountable difficulties are. I note that, right from the beginning, the channel tunnel prevented the transport of animals. I should seek veterinary advice before pushing on that point, but I shall look into it. It is slightly frustrating to some that we have the tunnel and cannot use it. I take the hon. Gentleman's point; I suspect that there is a history to the matter which I do not know, so I shall come back to him on it.

Mr. Roger Gale: My right hon. Friend might find that, were animals of any kind transported in open lorries on freight trains with open sides through the


channel tunnel—the only way in which they could be transported—the force of the wind would be such that they would suffer from severe windburn.

Mr. Waldegrave: I suspect that the matter has been looked into, which is why I say that I shall write to the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones).
That brings me to a further point which I shall take out of order in my speech. A way forward may be radically to raise the standard of the transportation vehicles, both ships and lorries, over time. The Irish have what are called pullman lorries, which are of a high standard, with air-conditioning and the capacity to feed and water animals on board. They are used particularly for pigs and for thoroughbred and breeding animals. In the longer term—it cannot be done overnight—we should be focusing attention Europewide on the radical improvement of vehicles and ships. Whether such vehicles could go on trains would have to be considered when the time came.
I return to the subject of veal crates. No one who has seriously considered the matter doubts that a ban on the export of all live animals is out of the question; nor would it be right, although we want to minimise that and maximise the exportation of meat because that is sensible and minimises such problems as exist.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): I represent an area with a substantial number of sheep. The right hon. Gentleman will know that farmers in my constituency will share his disappointment that he was unable to secure agreement at the Council meeting during the past two days. However, I wish to impress on him the urgency of reaching agreement in March in particular. We are now coming up to the lambing season in April, May and June, which will be a critical time for farmers in my constituency. Will the Minister ensure that he and his colleagues are in a position to try to secure agreement in March?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman has a particular interest in ensuring that we have sensible rules for the carriage of animals across water and that we do not put ourselves in the position where we cannot do that. He is living proof of the nonsense that would result from that.
I shall return to what happened yesterday. I apologise to the House if I am not as eloquent as the House is used to hearing. I returned late last night and I have not had much sleep. What happened yesterday had some good and some bad elements, to which I shall return because they are the basis of the crucial next step.
However, I want to deal with veal crates. I beg the House to remember that the stoking up of frustration outside by saying that something can easily be done unilaterally is not a sensible way to proceed. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said from a sedentary position that most of the people protesting are Tories. I do not know whether that is true or not.

Mr. Tony Banks: It is.

Mr. Waldegrave: If so, and if they are peacefully protesting, I am proud of them. I am grateful for the endorsement from such a source that Tories lead in concern in these matters. It is helpful of the hon. Gentleman to make that point.
When I talk to such people, to the decent people who are really worried—not the extremists; I am sorry to say that there are some, and dangerous people they are, too—they cannot get over the fact that they have been told again and again that there is something simple that I can do that I am not doing.
There are two reasons why there is not something simple that can be done. First, there is the legal position on veal crates. I have taken legal advice on the matter. There is a long-standing convention that the Government do not publish the detailed legal advice that they receive, and for good reason. The Government will appear in court next week in the case of Lomas, in which we are defending the ban that we imposed on exports to Spain because its slaughterhouse standards were not good. We made a bilateral deal with Spain on that, on which we are being challenged.
We do not want to set out all our advice in detail, because that would be a gift to the other side, who would seek to pick holes in it. However, with the permission of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, I have set out unusually fully the range of arguments that lead us to conclude that it would be irresponsible for a Government of either party to seek to introduce unilaterally a veal crate ban.
The reason is a matter of common sense and law, which sometimes point in the same direction. The Community has passed a legal instrument which defines veal crates, although unsatisfactorily. We were outvoted on the matter. It says what a veal crate is and its exact dimensions. In certain circumstances, where the Community has not put its mind to an issue, the court could say that article 36 could be used because it was claimed that there was a welfare issue.
But where the Community has debated the matter at length and has had all the points put to it before the decision is reached—as they were put by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Environment—and the Community, through all its instruments, endorsed by the European Parliament and the Commission, comes to a conclusion, the court is bound to take the view that the matters were taken into account at the time and cannot be brought up subsequently. That is sensible legal doctrine, and common sense.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is it not worth letting the court so decide? Why should the Minister be both judge and jury in the case?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is not a fair way of putting it. Ministers, of whatever party is in power, have to advise the House on what is a responsible and reasonable way to proceed. For us to introduce a law which we know will be challenged instantly and which may produce a period when the law is completely unclear because rival laws overlap would not be responsible, because it would raise expectations. [Interruption.] I shall return to the point made wrongly by the hon. Member for Carlisle about horses. Such a step would simply stoke up anger and confusion. I assure the House that all the advice that I have been given is that it would fail.
Two further points were made which have nothing to do with the situation concerning horses. We have carefully preserved the legal base for our extra ban on the export of horses for slaughter. That is based on an article in a directive, which includes solipeds, sea mammals and birds,


which allows us to take further measures. That is the basis of our legal action on that matter. It has nothing to do with the articles to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I am determined that that legal basis for our ban on the export of horses will survive. We are making sure that its legal basis remains in any directive that is passed. However, it is wholly misleading to use that special case for additional bans. They would not work at all.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is not the conclusion to be drawn from what the Minister is saying that, at the end of the argument, it is the states of southern Europe that will determine the animal welfare policies of the United Kingdom Government? In so far as many of us believe that they will never change their position, because they have no history of understanding the issues in the way that people do in the United Kingdom, and they do not want to do so for commercial reasons and climatic conditions, surely the Government are saying that they must throw in the towel.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman must not despair. The last two days have been the third occasion in the Council in which I have been involved in the debate. It is perfectly clear that opinion is slowly but steadily swinging in the right direction. It would be misleading to tell the House that the battle is over and the problem will be resolved quickly. A hard, pounding battle faces us, like the battles on, for example, air pollution or environmental standards in the early 1980s when the British Government were initially a bit of a laggard.

Mr. Tony Banks: Thanks to Margaret Thatcher.

Mr. Waldegrave: That took time and caused great frustration. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned Mrs. Thatcher and said it was her great speech that shifted the whole policy so that progress was made.
It is hopeless to assume that we will always lose the argument. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton made an important point. Italy imports about 6 million animals a year on the hoof, including sheep, goats, horses and cattle. Many of those already come from eastern Europe, Russia and Poland. I am told by vets that the animals are arriving at the end of intolerably long journeys in very poor conditions.
If the House is so pessimistic that it thinks we will lose the battles before we start, it is saying that nothing in Europe will be improved in order to address the issues in those countries and to raise the standard of welfare for millions of animals—not just the few thousand from here—all over Europe. That would be a counsel of despair. It would not be the advice to our people based on animal welfare. It would be the wrong kind of little England attitude—if I may apologise to the Irish, Scots and Welsh who are present—to say let us take our hat away, look at our own corner and give up on the rest.
There is a great prize involved, and we now have a majority in terms of votes and in term of numbers of countries on our side. We are working as a team alongside the biggest and most powerful country in the community—Germany. People from the Scandinavian countries—the Swedes, Danes and Fins—are working closely with us and are concerned about the issues. The Austrians—new entrants to the Community—are also closely with us. The Dutch are closely with us and there are one or two countries that will agree to anything.
The four groups who remain are the Spanish, the Italians, the Greeks and the Portuguese. There is a very big economic interest for Italy and a biggish one for Spain.

They have to be shown that real journey limits and journeys that are not too long will not put an overnight stop to the importation of animals. They will get their animals, perhaps at a slightly higher price, although those countries have great skill in extracting from those who pay for the Community certain subsidies to pay for any additional costs that fall on them, and I do not suppose that they would lose that skill. Nor would it be wrong to sugar the pill with some mixture of funds to make it possible, particularly for poorer countries such as Portugal and Greece, to meet the new standards. It would be a better use of funds than some of the uses to which they are put at present.
If we stick to our guns—the issue will not be solved in March—it will be hard pounding. I hope that we will return to the matter in March, but it may be June before that happens. It is not, however, a hopeless task. There is the idea of higher quality transportation and various other ideas that can be put on the table and shoved through.
If, however, the House says to Europe and the Commission that we shall take our bat away, pass illegal laws and give up, we shall be out of the game and we will not be thanked by those in Europe who are serious about raising animal welfare expectations and the strength of the animal welfare movement around Europe. We would be thought to have been pretty irresponsible; we would be locked in battle with the Commission and all those who are our friends would become our enemies. That would be a stupid piece of negotiation.

Mr. Mark Robinson: My right hon. Friend has been at the forefront of bringing the issue to the centre of attention in Europe. He has gone a long way towards persuading other countries to come on side and building a serious consensus whereby we can achieve some sensible regulation. How would we be perceived in Europe if we were to turn around, say that we would act unilaterally and walk away from the issue? We would lose influence and our leadership role.

Sir Donald Thompson: On the same point, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I spend much time in the Council of Europe with people from those countries that want to join the Economic Union. The Ukraine is one of those, and throughout this century until the war, thousands of horses were transported in those now notorious cattle trucks. Countries wanting to join the Economic Union sign up to all its decrees before they are allowed in. We were discussing the matter only yesterday. The representatives arrive with lists of lists. The Baltic and eastern European countries are eager to show that they are as civilised as the rest of us, and it is a civilising measure. If we stop, they will have nothing to sign.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. What is more, there is a danger of doing real damage—if we could get away with it, and I suspect that we could not. If we did that, we could damage British farming, where welfare standards are probably higher than elsewhere in Europe, and deliver the whole trade—the 6 million animals that go to Italy and the large number of animals that go to France and Spain—to eastern European countries; we would have lost the influence to raise the standards before those countries join. We must make proper rules before they join: otherwise, we shall drive the trade away to places where the standards are worse.
Let me give one piece of evidence that the battle is not the forgone defeat which some people seem almost to hope it is. I remember being told we would get no interest in the veal crate story. I remember being warned that when I raised it in the Council there would be an embarrassed silence and people would say that the English were eccentric. That is not what happened.
I raised the matter in the January Council and I had no idea what the response would be. Eight other countries came in behind me at once and the Commission said that the review of the veal crates which was to be carried out in 1997 would be brought forward to this year. We raised the issue again last night and the Commissioner, Franz Fischler, said that he was now able to strengthen his earlier undertaking that the report would be available by the end of the year; having talked to the relevant experts, he was now able to say that the report would be ready considerably earlier. In terms of getting law through, that is not too bad.
We are concerned not only about the veal crates but about the animals' diet, which is also important. It is no good having calves fed no iron so that they are deliberately brought up anaemic. There are things that we can do: those who think that nothing can be done by persuasion and by raising issues in Europe are too defeatist.
There are also things we can do at home. That is why my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has been doing such good work. She has also done good work in diplomacy, in getting people around Europe to see how important the subject is. I also pay tribute to the RSPCA, which revealed by an operation it carried out last week the appalling situation in two Greek slaughterhouses. Experts went to Athens and did the work where it mattered; they got a big response in Athens, as this has now become a real issue there. I helped them by writing to the Commissioner, and they received an instant response from the Commission, which sent inspectors to see what was going on and to put the matter right.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Robinson) asked what would happen if we took away our bat and ball and gave up. A large part of the steam would go out of the issue.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is leading various measures we are taking to expand exports on the hook and to try to re-establish a British-based veal industry. Rose veal is perfectly satisfactory. The meat tastes nicer than insipid white meat, and it is far better that those male calves should be used for proper food which is humanely reared than that we should go down the route followed by the New Zealanders and knock them all on the head at birth. The farmers and the public would not like that, and it is wasteful and unpleasant. I am strongly against that; therefore, if I possibly can, I shall not introduce the subsidy premium to do that.
We have a difficult but serious set of policies. We need to win the argument in Europe and I believe that we are already winning the veal crate argument. We have a difficult, but not impossible, task on transportation. We have a set of policies for exports on a hook which we can develop further. I would be happy to receive sensible suggestions from the House and the country on what we can do, as we have a little money to spend on that aspect. We must not blackguard the name of meat in general or of veal in general. That would simply make the market collapse and would be extremely short-sighted. All the sub-editors

who write headlines condemning veal are actually damaging the cause of humane rearing for a British veal trade.
I welcome today's debate, which has highlighted the current frustration about what are felt to be limitations when there is real progress to be made. I must, however, put the other side of the case, which has already been advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton. While the trade is legal, it is incumbent on the Government to defend it via the police, who do not always find that a very happy task.
As I said at the beginning, this is the easiest of all causes in Britain to stir up and campaign for—although that does not mean that it is wrong. The farmers' argument is more difficult to put, and it is easier to arouse emotional opposition to it. Having myself received hundreds of threats, I must say that some of the threats and so forth that ordinary farmers are receiving are not satisfactory in a civilised society. We must be a rule-based, law-based society, especially if we want to protect the weak—and the weakest of all are the animals.
If we are saying that we want a stronger law on animals, what is the point of applauding those who break the law because they feel strongly? I urge the House to be careful about judging causes by the strength of feeling that lies behind them: those who persecute Salman Rushdie feel at least as strongly as others feel about animals, if not more strongly. The strength of feeling does not justify the cause; what justifies the cause is rational and dispassionate debate such as that with which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton so eloquently opened today's discussion.
My hon. Friend has shown that there are things to be done, and I hope and believe that the Government are doing them. They will take time, but they are worth doing. I commit Conservative Members—with, I think, a good deal of support from the Opposition—to doing those things, with, I hope, the full-hearted consent of the House.

Mr. Nick Harvey: I welcome the initiative of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) in calling for the debate—and, indeed, the decision to allot three hours to it. I commend the hon. Gentleman on his constructive and sensible speech.
Until now, the House has been slow to respond to the widening debate on the live export of animals and the welfare of farm animals in general. One can sympathise with the exasperation of some of the protesters at the apparent failure of the national political system to take action; but perhaps it is an indication of the strength of our democracy that so many people have exercised their right to argue and protest about the issue. This morning's debate is a mechanism for the representation of the public's views.
The protesters, many of whom are Liberal Democrats, have clearly done us all a service. They have raised awareness among the whole population—including politicians—of the animal welfare implications of our farming industry; they have shown a strength of commitment, and they have highlighted how much politics is changing and how much hon. Members must change with it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us who speaks for the Liberal party? Is it the hon. Gentleman, who expresses sympathy for those who


demonstrate, or is it the party's official spokesman on agricultural matters, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who condemned the demonstrators in the language quoted by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson)? Who speaks for the Liberal party—those who condemn the protesters, or the hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey)?

Mr. Harvey: I have heard the hon. Gentleman mumbling about that all morning, so I am grateful for the opportunity to respond.
While the language used by my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on the occasion to which the hon. Gentleman refers was perhaps rather more florid than the language that I might have chosen in the circumstances, two points should be made. First, his remarks should be taken in context: they were made after the protests had turned violent, and at a time when those who had initiated them, like Compassion in World Farming, were disowning the violence. Secondly, his points struck me as eminently sensible.
My hon. Friend said that, if the British took unilateral action, it would be found to be invalid within days; that if we went off on our own, we would lose influence in Europe; and that, if we replaced cruelty to British animals with cruelty to foreign animals, no overall benefit would be achieved. Clearly the protesters would feel that those urging them on had misled them if they proceeded with such a course and ended up disappointed. It seems to me that, whatever my hon. Friend's language, the points that he made were perfectly valid.
I am sure that most hon. Members support the motives of the peaceful protesters of Shoreham, Brightlingsea, Coventry, Plymouth and elsewhere, and want—at the very least—improvements in the welfare of animals that are exported and more exports on the hook rather than on the hoof. The House should, however, move beyond sentiment—important and powerful though that is—to discussing the practical measures that can be taken to alleviate the pain and suffering of animals.
What, then, are the options? First, the Government could respond to demands from hon. Members and others, and introduce a ban on the export of live animals. Secondly, we could allow an effective ban on live exports through ports and airports simply refusing to take the trade. Thirdly, we could tighten existing British regulations on live transport, and enforce them more rigorously. Fourthly, we could campaign for tough Europewide regulations to be effectively implemented.
The first two options may seem superficially attractive. They would ensure that British animals did not suffer the indignities of long-distance transportation or end up in systems that have been banned in the United Kingdom. As I have said, however, they would not reduce the sum of animal suffering in the European Union. British farmers are responding to a demand for locally slaughtered meat in exporting lambs and veal calves, and I see no reason to suppose that demand would not be met if we stopped supplying them via other producers in Europe.

Mr. Elliot Morley: I am a little confused by what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Before coming to the House today, I read the Liberal animal welfare policy document, "A Matter of Conscience", which clearly states:

until such time as acceptable and enforceable EC-wide standards are in place, Liberal Democrats advocate an end to the live export of animals.
That is not what is being argued by the hon. Gentleman, or by the Liberal Democrat spokesman. What is the Liberal Democrats' policy on the issue?

Mr. Harvey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I shall continue to build the argument as I proceed, but, for reasons that I have already explained, a Europewide solution must be found.

Mr. Morley: What about the policy document?

Mr. Harvey: I will not debate that point further. The Liberal policy document is exactly the same as the Labour policy document, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will clarify that policy later.
A range of legal opinion—not least that of the legal director of the RSPCA, who has taken expert advice—has concluded that a ban introduced by the Government could not be sustained after the passing of a unilateral British law. It might not have mattered in 1973, when we entered the European Community, but our obligations under the single market and the general agreement on tariffs and trade make it extremely unlikely that we would not face a challenge.
Some have argued—it has been argued again this morning—that we should press ahead with such a ban in any case, and battle it out in the European Court. The loss of such a battle, however, would return us to square one. All the time, energy and effort put into lobbying for a Bill and pushing it through Parliament would be wasted; as has been said this morning, that time, energy and effort would be better expended on taking the argument to the countries that are delaying progress at a European level. It would probably also force the Government to allow the trade to pass through the ports that have decided, on their own initiative, not to take it.
The problem with the second suggested solution—an ad hoc ban allowing ports that have banned the trade to continue that ban—is that, while it would be effective in the short term, it would not provide a longer-term solution. The fear is that unilateral action by the United Kingdom, whatever its nature, will reduce pressure on the European Union to take action. Surely none of us wants the issue to fall down the agenda of the Council of Ministers, after the progress that has been made.
To some extent, the third option—the tightening of UK regulations—has already been followed by the Government, in response to some of the demands for change from the protesters. I join those who argue that the recent regulations do not go far enough. There have been many suggestions of further action, including those made by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), and I hope that the Government will continue to listen and implement some of them; but there are clearly limits to the effectiveness of regulation in the United Kingdom on its own, especially given the failurc to enforce existing European regulations adequately in many other European countries.
How are we to achieve effective and enforceable EU-wide standards? The protesters themselves are clearly playing an important part in keeping the issue at the top of the political agenda. As I have said, more of their protests should be directed at countries whose animal welfare standards are lower than our own. The


Government and the House must continue to exert pressure on the Council of Ministers. I commend the Minister on the progress that he has made in that, and I hope that further progress will be made at next months's meeting.
In fairness, the Minister has taken a more robust attitude on this matter than his predecessor, who was persuaded only late in the day last year to support the German proposal for a 15-hour limit on live transport. The Government have now seen the error of their ways. It is a pity that they did not take advantage of the British presidency in 1992. Their report on their achievements during the presidency makes no mention of any action to improve the welfare of animals during transport.
A problem exists on both sides of the issue: the failure to think through the consequences of the actions that have been taken. The Ministry and the Meat and Livestock Commission are thinking only now about how to develop a humane veal industry in the United Kingdom. Why did not that happen at the time of, if not before, the introduction of the veal crate ban in 1990?
Another problem has been the decline in the abattoir industry, where unprecedented centralisation has taken place. The number of abattoirs in this country has fallen to less than half the number in 1979. That has not happened elsewhere in Europe—or even in Northern Ireland—because the relevant Governments have found ways of getting around the problem and requested derogations.
As a result, Wales, for example, no longer has the abattoir capacity to deal with all its lambs, which have to be transported further away for slaughter. Farmers in the constituencies of, for example, my hon. Friends the Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) are simply not able to get animals to a slaughterhouse within eight hours, which we, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and many others would want to see.
Proposals from people who continue to advocate a ban for dealing with the large number of bull calves must be considered closely. I agree with the Minister that the public, farmers or anyone else would not welcome the suggestion that those animals should all be killed at birth. Even if they are, the cost implications of compensating farmers through some mechanism or other will be considerable. Similarly, people say cheerfully that bull calves could go off into the beef herd, but it is clear that most of those animals are not suitable for that purpose. In any event, that would cause immense disruption to the market in beef cattle and beef calves. Neither of those solutions is satisfactory.
In the longer term, we need far more radical change than has yet been considered. The whole thrust of the common agricultural policy needs to be changed. Rather than merely acknowledging the role of farmers and of rural areas, we need to acknowledge the much wider role of maintaining the countryside and protecting animal welfare. That is why we have called for the replacement of the common agricultural policy with a common rural policy; a call that has been echoed by many others, including Professor John Webster, head of Bristol university's veterinary school. With the National Farmers Union, he has argued that European Union funding should be redirected from food production to humane treatment of animals.
All that, however, would take time to implement. We must acknowledge that no magical solution and no quick fix exist. If we fail to acknowledge that, we may be pushed into accepting the wider use of bovine somatotropin in this country and elsewhere, which would increase the cows' milk yield without increasing the number of calves born. We could even get into the realms of genetic engineering to reduce the number of male calves that are born. We would not want either of those options to be embraced. All the options would require a great deal of discussion in the House and beyond.
The Government can and, to some extent, have introduced a series of policies to limit the suffering of animals in transport. More work needs to be done. Today's debate is a welcome start, but it is only a first step. I hope that the Minister will succeed in his efforts to keep this issue at the top of the agenda at the Council of Ministers, that he will keep the House informed of its deliberations, and that he will use the ideas and experience of many hon. Members in developing the necessary policies.
I hope that he will harness the energy of the pressure groups and of the public to work for change at EU level. If the campaign can be taken across the continent, the legitimate demands of protesters, the needs of farmers and the requirement to produce food that is affordable to the public can all be met.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: This matter has been in the public eye for many months. During that time, and during this debate, I do not think that many people have recalled that the Select Committee on Agriculture, of which I have the honour to be Chairman, examined the matter of animals in transit way back in 1991. Our report, which was unanimously approved by all members of my Committee, treated the matter with common sense and should be a source of reference. I hope that commentators will take the opportunity to study some of the things that we said.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who was a member of the Committee at that time, has now left the Chamber. He was not enthusiastic then about banning anything except the importation of exotic birds and other special species. The Committee confirmed the necessity for free trade in animals and went into the matter in some depth. It is a bit inconsistent of him to wish to ban the export of calves, but not of sheep. I suspect that that is because there are not too many dairy herds in Carlisle, but there are plenty of sheep. The hon. Gentleman's speech was seriously inconsistent.
My right hon. Friend the Minister set out the matter in common-sense terms. I strongly support the general direction of the Government's attitude to this problem. It is divided into two halves—the transport of animals, and the welfare of those animals once they have left our shores. I shall not go too much into the second point, in case my Committee resolves to examine the matter. I would not wish to anticipate the position. However, it went into the transport issue closely. I should like to remind the House of three important point that we made.
The report states:
it would be desirable in principle for animals to be slaughtered at the nearest available point.


I think that the House agrees on that. The report continues:
the Commission should frame legislation which expressly discourages the transportation of slaughter animals over long distances.
The report also urged the then Minister
to be vigilant in holding the Commission to the spirit of the preamble in any new proposals with which they may come forward.
In other words, British standards are the highest and the best, and we should seek to impose them, rather than be prepared to allow derogation of our standards for the continental ones, which are not as good.
It is easy to say that animals should be slaughtered as near to the point of production as possible, but An many parts of the United Kingdom, slaughterhouses arc a great distance away. The islands of Scotland would not be able to produce meat animals if they did not first bring them across on ferries and on other transport. I shall be interested to hear what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) says on that subject.
The Minister's decision to continue to block the export of live food animals to countries that fail to meet the new European Community directive gains unanimous support on both sides of the House. Even though the Community has subsequently removed the legality of some of the actions that we have taken, we understand that chief vets in the countries concerned are co-operating. We are moving towards EC-approved slaughterhouses, the standards of which are much higher than those of many of the slaughterhouses that, I am sad to say, we have been using in this country.
I am being diverted down a different road from the subject under discussion. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister uses the support that the Committee gave him when he presses these matters in Brussels. We made it clear that Community safeguards should be consistent with British statutes. The Government used just that phrase in their response to our Committee's report.
The maximum period of travel without rest is a contentious issue, but, having taken expert evidence, the Committee concluded that one of the most stressful factors in animal transport is the loading and unloading of those animals. When a properly equipped lorry is properly loaded with the right size of animal and in the right density, conditions are less stressful than when animals are taken on and off. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman) is nodding in agreement. As an experienced livestock man, he will concur that it is the stress that we want to avoid.
We did not go along with the RSPCA and others who have sought an eight-hour limit. We thought that the general limit should be 12 hours for any species, with the possible exception of horses, but with a 15-hour limit if that was to be the termination of the journey. That would be in line with Britain's existing legislation, although the Community has yet to adopt such figures. My right hon. Friend the Minister has the Committee's support in trying to achieve a lower limit on the continent.
The Committee recommended that vehicles should be certified. There is no question about the Dutch having a very high standard. It is quite wrong to think that all continental animal transport is cruel; it is not. During our inquiry, we learned that Holland is the second largest exporter of food in the world. It would be no use a Dutch exporter sending his pigs to southern Italy only for them

to arrive in a poor condition. It does no good to any farmer or transporter if the product does not arrive in good condition.
There is no will to transport animals cruelly. There can be no advantage in doing so. From reading some of the articles in the press and seeing some of the advertisements placed by animal welfare societies, one might think that there were some advantages to transporting animals cruelly.
The Committee would like animal transport to be more rigidly checked. We were not convinced that, even in this country, checks were as rigid as they should be—and we were far from convinced that on the continent checks were even carried out. We hope that something can he clone about that.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that one point that should be firmly stressed is the fact that, year after year, exports of bloodstock and of pedigree livestock for breeding purposes are carried out to the most humane standards possible? There is no reason why exports of livestock for slaughter should not reach the same high standards.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I agree with my hon. Friend. It simply does not pay the farmer or the transporter to produce animals, even those for slaughter, in poor condition.
The Committee suggested that there should be more official training for the drivers of vehicles. Unfortunately, the Government rather ran away from that idea, and took the view that more regulation was unnecessary. I was rather sorry about that, because it would be helpful if a training scheme were to be introduced for the drivers of vehicles carrying livestock.

Mr. Waldegrave: The Government have now accepted the Committee's advice. Included in the parts of the European directive that are agreed—although the key bits are not agreed—is a training scheme for drivers.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. The Committee has not considered the matter for a year or two, so I was not fully up to date with the current position. I welcome what he has said.
I shall deal now with documentation. Much of the key to the welfare of animals in transport is ensuring that we know where the animals have come from, when they left there and where they are going. One problem raised by those who want a selective ban on veal calves—for example, those going for veal production—is how we can find out what will happen to those animals when they leave our shores and we no longer have any direct control over them. Therefore, the idea of a selective ban is ludicrous.
The Committee strongly supported the Government's view on the export of horses. The way we solved that problem was extremely clever, and I am sure that it is supported on both sides of the House.
I realise that time is short. It is regrettable that the procedures of the House do not permit the debating of Select Committee reports in greater detail and sooner after they are published. Had we had an opportunity to debate our report at the time, a few lessons would have been learnt and people would remember the interest that a Select Committee of the House had taken in such an important subject.

Mr. Tony Banks: I endorse what the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) said about debating reports from Select Committees. It is silly that hon. Members should serve on these Committees and produce reports after considerable deliberation, only for them never to be discussed on the Floor of the House. One could say it was almost time wasting. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for this work as Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is a Christian gentleman—[Interruption.] He endorses that accusation. I am sure that if my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) were here, he would defend himself. If, over the years, he has changed his position on the export of veal calves, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a Christian gentleman, would welcome his conversion. A sinner repentant is welcome in heaven, even if, in this case, heaven is the Agriculture Select Committee.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on choosing this subject for debate, which is named "Export of live animals". I believe that we should avoid the export of animals for slaughter as much as possible. I should prefer a complete ban; animals for consumption should be on the hook, not the hoof.
The RSPCA position on maximum journey times is quite clear—eight hours from wherever the journey starts to the abattoir. Of course I understand that there are implications for Britain because of its geographical position. Nevertheless, I believe the RSPCA demand to he reasonable. The Germans adopted a similar view within their law. They may now be moving away from that position, but that is another matter. At least they decided, in their wisdom, to adopt such a law.
The hon. Member for Sutton mentioned the European Parliament. In December 1993, it took a specific vote on the issue and, by 271 votes to six, decided to impose a maximum eight-hour journey time. If there is to be progress in journey times and animal welfare in Europe, it is important to try to achieve that during the French presidency. However much I endorse what the Minister said, he should never go into negotiations pessimistically—he should always go in intent on winning. Certainly Lady Thatcher always took that attitude in Europe, even if she did not always emerge as successfully as she thought she had. If we wait for the Spanish, Italian and Irish presidencies, which follow the French, we will have even more difficulties than we are experiencing now.
The hon. Member for Sutton spoke about taking the protest to Brussels—into Europe. I agree, but that does not mean that we should stop protests here. We must protest in all the countries of Europe, although I accept that in particular we should protest in Brussels. I understand that on Monday the Minister received a petition organised by the RSPCA, which had been signed by 2.5 million people. They were not all people from this country; European nationals signed the petition. It called for a maximum eight-hour journey time and other animal welfare measures such as the training of drivers.
The right hon. Gentleman was right to say that the RSPCA has been campaigning in other European countries—for example, France, Greece and Spain. It is

not something specific to eccentric English people. Many people are protesting in European capitals and countries. That is right thing to do.
The Government have often spoken about leading Europe on this issue. I give credit to the Minister for doing more than his predecessor did. When the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard) entered into the negotiations last year, she was lagging far behind the Germans, the Dutch, the Belgians and the Danes on the issues of journey times and animal welfare. Perhaps we should be grateful that we have a new Secretary of State—[HON. MEMBERS: "Minister."] I am sorry, I have promoted the right hon. Gentleman—obviously something that will never happen to me.
I shall now discuss veal calves. Everyone who understands or knows anything about the way in which the veal calf is produced in the veal crate will be repelled by the concept of placing a young calf for six months in conditions that one would only describe as inhuman, barbaric and abominable. That is why the Government rightly banned the production of veal in veal crates. However, we thereby reach the absurd and, at times, hypocritical position, as many understand it, of banning the production of veal in veal crates in this country but exporting the same calves to be produced in veal crates and re-importing the product. It appears illogical.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The hon. Gentleman's speech is extremely interesting. Stepping aside from the hypocrisy for a moment, I understand that about 1.25 million unwanted male calves are born to the British dairy herd each year. What does the hon. Gentleman suggest that we do with those?

Mr. Banks: I accept that. It is fully understood that those calves are unsuitable for the beef trade. Perhaps people who are tucking into their cheese and drinking their milk should think a little more about the implications of what they are doing.

Mr. Duncan: They should eat British veal.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman asked me a question, and I shall answer him. One of the ways of solving the problem is to stop eating cheese and drinking milk. [Interruption.] Yes, the hon. Gentleman asked me my opinion, but I am an eccentric and a total loony. I accept that, so let not anyone else shout that out before I have admitted it.
If we were to ban the export of veal calves, it would give greater impetus to our own veal-producing industry, but I accept that demand for veal in this country has never been especially significant, and indeed is declining. However, those matters must be considered. If we find it necessary to move to a position in which male calves are killed at birth, that would have to be accepted. It is easy for me to say that, because I am not a veal calf. I should not like to be exterminated at birth, although I am sure that a few Conservative Members think that it would have been a good idea.
We must accept that implication, if need be; we must consider all the options, but I accept that that is one of the problems.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Banks: No; but I shall in a moment.
It appears absurd that, although we have banned the method of production, we re-import the product that comes from the same method of production somewhere else. The same is true of paté de foie gras. One could not produce paté de foie gras in this country, force-feeding geese as the French do, because it would be illegal, but we are nevertheless prepared to import it into the country. Many people feel that that is an illogical position, which should he rectified.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman's speech is interesting and powerful.
Some people, led by some supermarkets, are selling veal that may be imported but take great care to ensure that it comes from humane rearing sources in Holland and elsewhere. I hope that nothing that we say today will diminish our commitment to that type of effort, because, every time that a supermarket does that, it helps us to ensure that animals are reared humanely before we manage to change the law to ensure that they are reared humanely.

Mr. Banks: The right hon. Gentleman is reading my notes, because that is precisely what I intended to say. Sainsbury's is one of the supermarkets that does that voluntarily. It would be helpful—we have asked Ministers questions about it—to make it compulsory to declare the method of production on goods, so that the consumer can exercise choice. If the consumer does not have the choice of deciding, "I do not want that veal because I do not like the method of production," we are not empowering the consumer as we should. Naturally, I welcome the fact that some supermarkets do so. I regret the fact that many others do not.

Mr. Jenkin: Some of us find it confusing that some of the most enthusiastic proponents of European union do not support my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in his efforts to achieve what we need to achieve on a European basis, and that they are the first to argue for a unilateral ban, which would appear to put the hon. Gentleman on to the Euro-sceptic side of the argument.

Mr. Banks: Is it not interesting that the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is one of the most fervent Euro-phobes in this place, and continually pushes his colleagues to opt out, not to accept, to stand up and fight and so on, yet on that issue he is not prepared to urge his colleagues to do precisely that?

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Banks: I cannot give way. [Interruption.] All right, I will, but Madam Speaker said that speeches should be 10 minutes long and I am trying to stay within that limit, because many Conservative Members want to speak.

Mr. Jenkin: My position is absolutely clear. I believe that the House should have, and ultimately has, the authority to decide what goes across our frontiers. I do not accept that this Parliament has lost its sovereignty. The policy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would have more authority if he acknowledged that the House had the power to ban live exports.

Mr. Banks: The Minister is arguing completely the opposite, but on this occasion I will join hands with the

hon. Member for Colchester, North. It is a strange alliance. We make odd bedfellows—metaphorically, of course, not literally. Under the circumstances, I welcome what he has said.
Let me say something to the hon. Member for Sutton, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment. The hon. Gentleman spoke with all the certainty of ignorance about the protesters who have been standing outside the harbour at Shoreham and at various other places throughout the country. I am a vegetarian, but I know that not all those protesters are militant vegetarians or vegans. Some are likely to be, but I suspect that most are meat-eaters.
I know, as a result of having perhaps the heaviest correspondence of any Member in the House about animal welfare issues, that many of the letters that I receive start, "I write as a lifelong Conservative supporter" and they often continue, "and I am not going to vote Tory again." It is not for me to help the Conservative party win back its lost support, but I shall make those letters freely available to Ministers so that they realise that those protesters, in many respects, are not militant vegetarians or vegans. Some protestors are vegetarians, like me, but many are middle-aged, middle-class Tory supporters, who are repelled by the trade.

Mr. Waldegrave: No one doubts the hon. Gentleman's commitment or concern, so it would be helpful if he would join me in unequivocally condemning those who use threats. We have all probably received such threats. I have received hundreds of very sick letters indeed. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in saying that farmers, parliamentarians and so on should not receive such letters, and that that way of persuading people is utterly wrong.

Mr. Banks: I have no difficulty in saying that I agree, because such behaviour is diversionary. The media seize on those isolated examples—as did the hon. Member for Sutton, reading extracts from The Times—as a way of suggesting that the great mass of public opinion and the great mass of protesters are not genuine, decent, law-abiding people, many of whom have never been out on a protest before but who are moved to protest because they find that trade so abhorrent.

Mr. Duncan: rose—

Mr. Banks: I cannot take up the time of the House much longer—a minute more perhaps.
Article 36 of the treaty of Rome appears to offer the Government a way out.

Mr. Waldegrave: indicated dissent.

Mr. Banks: The Minister shakes his head. There is conflicting legal advice about it. It is often said that, if one does not like the advice that one receives from one lawyer, one should go and buy another lawyer. That might not be what the Government want to do, but I believe that it is worth imposing a ban under article 36.
If we ban the export of veal calves and the import of veal, we cannot be said to be interfering in trade in terms of giving preference to our domestic industry, because it is true that the farmers of this country will receive the greatest impact of the ban. It is difficult to imagine a way in which that could be challenged from outside these shores. If it is not challenged, we have won; if it is


challenged, I hope that the Minister would show more enthusiasm to defend it than he is now doing by shaking his head. He has already spoken about the minimum value order for horses. I know for a fact that he has said that, if that were challenged in the European Court, it would probably be lost, but he stands by that position and is ready to defend it in the European Court. We want some political will from the Government.
I am prepared to support the Government in their negotiations on improvements in animal welfare when they negotiate in the interests of animals and public opinion, but not when they are in thrall, acting as the lickspittles of the National Farmers Union.

Mr. Roger Gale: It is a pleasure to be able to follow my friend, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is a regular contributor to the debates that we hold internally in the all-party animal welfare group. The hon. Gentleman referred to his eccentricity on some of these matters, but nobody would gainsay his commitment to the cause of animal welfare or the sincerity with which he holds his views.
Sadly, I must almost immediately differ from the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman. He knows me well enough to understand that if I thought that there was a snowball's chance in hell of achieving a legitimate ban on the export of veal calves or, in general, of live animals for slaughter, I would be going for it hell for leather.
From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Newham, North-West mentioned the situation facing Germany. Where one country has tried to introduce a unilateral ban—Germany is the only one that has—it has immediately been taken before the European courts by other countries. Were we to go down that road, I fear that the transporters, the farmers and others involved in the trade on both sides of the channel would immediately sue for large sums of money.
Also from a sedentary position, I heard the hon. Member for Newham, North-West say earlier, "Go for it. It's our money." I am not entirely certain that those who elect us would take that view once the bills started to come in.
I hope to be brief, if only because my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) covered so much of the ground in his excellent opening speech. I pay tribute to him for raising the issue and giving us an opportunity to debate it on such a relevant day, given my right honourable and bleary-eyed Friend's labours in Brussels over the past couple of days. It is immensely helpful to have this early opportunity to hear the present position from the Front Bench, whether we like it or not.
On behalf of the all-party group—I can probably speak for most if not all of its members—I must say that we respect the fact that my right hon. Friend has gone into bat very hard on this issue and has taken a robust line. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the tireless work that she has done at grass-roots level with Ministers throughout the European Community, going round and trying to win hearts and minds. That is how the battle will be won, and I believe that it will be won.
For the past two years under my chairmanship, and before that under your distinguished chairmanship in another incarnation, Madam Deputy Speaker, the all-party animal welfare group has sought European solutions to animal welfare problems. In recent years we have had to recognise that, if we are to provide genuine solutions to animal welfare problems as opposed to populist tabloid newspaper headlines, we will have to do it on a Europewide basis. If there was ever need of the proof of that pudding, the veal crate problem undoubtedly provides it.
I concede immediately that I was one of those who welcomed the ban on veal crates in the United Kingdom. Shortly after that it became apparent, to some of us at least, that that was a pyrrhic victory. We did not ban the use of veal crates, we simply promoted the trade in other parts of the European Community. We moved the problem from A to B and some of us tried to pretend that we had solved it. That was not the case.
I do not believe that there is any merit in seeking a unilateral ban on anything if the practice continues on mainland Europe. If, by damaging our own trade, we simply create circumstances in which hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of cattle, sheep and pigs are imported into the European Union under infinitely worse conditions and over much longer distances from the eastern bloc, that is not contributing to the cause of animal welfare that I wish to promote as chairman of the all-party group.
As painstaking and unpopular as it may he on occasions—it is certainly not populist—my right hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary are correct to seek to press the cause within the European Union. I endorse entirely the actions of those, particularly the RSPCA, who have sought to take the battle, not to the tabloid headlines in the United Kingdom, but to the Ministers and the streets of Europe where the hearts and minds will have to be won.
My right hon. Friend currently has most of the northern states with him. That is a tremendous achievement and we should not gainsay it. Unfortunately, the southern states—Spain, Italy and Greece in particular—are less helpful. Millions of those who have been applauding what they have seen on television and some of those who have been demonstrating on the streets go to Spain, Italy and Greece for their holidays and eat the meat that comes from the animals about whose transport and slaughter they are complaining. Perhaps it behoves us now to remind our Spanish, Italian and Greek colleagues that those of us in the United Kingdom who use their holiday facilities do not approve of some of their practices and that we look to them for support to end once and for all the need for a trade that most of us find abhorrent.
I should like to see an end to the transport of live animals for slaughter in its entirety. It is not necessary in this day and age. My right hon. Friend said that he would welcome suggestions about ways in which we might achieve the export of more meat on the hook. I concur with those who have said this morning that our abattoir facilities are, for some very good reasons and some less good reasons, inadequate.
We have high-quality abattoirs, but they are not necessarily in the places where they are most needed by the farming community. Associated British Ports has told me that it has land at ports which, under the right circumstances, it might be prepared to make available for


abattoir facilities. I urge my right hon. Friend urgently to seek ways of investing in new and better abattoir facilities and in the cutting of meat specifically for the European market so that we can have the added value in this country and export our meat on the hook almost in its entirety. I should like to see the lot on the hook, not on the hoof. If we could do that, we would have brought about a major achievement. It could not happen overnight, but within months we could obviate much of the problem.
I must come back to the European solution. I have had to accept—I understand that not everybody in the House accepts this, but I do not believe that this is a party political issue—that the legal position does not allow us to pursue a unilateral ban. More than that, I genuinely believe that if my right hon. Friend, with support from both sides of the House, can win this battle, win the hearts and minds of his colleagues in the Council of Ministers and carry the sort of European directive that we want on this issue, we will have taken an enormous leap forward in European animal welfare. If we can win this battle, it will help us to win battles over the use of animals in medical experiments Europewide, in the import of wild-caught birds into Europe and in fiesta sports. That would be a major achievement.

Dr. Gavin Strang: The House can be in no doubt that the British people care a great deal about animal welfare, and today's debate has demonstrated that the House welcomes that concern. Many would argue that one of the hallmarks of a civilised society is the way in which it treats its animals.
When considering what legislation should be in place and what measures we should implement to avoid animal cruelty as far as possible, we must be objective. We must recognise that animals experience pain and strain, but it is wrong to assume that they think in the same way as humans and that what is comfortable for a human being would also be comfortable for an animal and vice versa. We must base our discussions and our decisions on the most objective scientific criteria available, but it must certainly be our objective to achieve legislation which ensures that animals are well looked after on the farms and that the opportunity for their ill-treatment in transportation and, of course, through methods of slaughter is absolutely minimal.

Mr. Duncan: rose—

Dr. Strang: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall give way rarely because I am keen to allow a number of hon. Members to speak.

Mr. Duncan: To that end, is it or it is not official Labour party policy to support the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew)?

Dr. Strang: I shall come to that point. We do not accept that the Minister is necessarily correct in his interpretation of the legal position with regard to calves, although we certainly accept the position with regard to sheep. Some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) may turn out to be germane to the final assessment of the legal position, but let me move on.
I appreciate the Minister's contribution to the debate. It is excellent that he is putting forward the Government's position in this Adjournment debate. I especially

appreciate his presence in view of the tremendous pressure that he has been under in the past two days, involving, I understand, many hours of negotiation into the early hours of this morning. The House very much appreciates the Minister being able to give us the very latest position and explain why the negotiations failed in Brussels.
The Minister commented on the history of the matter and it is worth adding to it. It should be recalled that we extended the maximum journey time of animals in legislation passed by the House of Commons. Before I January 1993, animals were allowed to travel for a maximum of 12 hours before they were fed, watered and rested, unless the journey could be completed in 15 hours. The Welfare Animal Transport Order 1992 increased the maximum interval from 12 to 15 hours. The requirement for animals to be fed and rested for 10 hours and inspected near the port of export was also scrapped on 1 January 1993.
Then, the Greek presidency compromise, as the Minister rightly described it, was discussed in June. That proposal stipulated 22 hours of transport before animals should have to be fed, watered and rested. There is no question that the British Government were minded to support that. Indeed, the then Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), said on 16 June that the Greek proposals were
a great step forward for animal welfare in the Community".
He went on to indicate the Government's support of them.
When the Minister's predecessor—I make no apology for putting this on the record—the right hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard), got over to Brussels, she discovered that, notwithstanding the British Government's support, since Belgium was joining Germany and the other opponents to the proposal, the proposal was to be defeated. So rather than vote for the proposal, lose the vote on the basis of qualified majority voting and have to justify that position, the Government flipped over and voted against it.
The Government's stance has been transformed since then, which we applaud and welcome. The stand now being taken by the Minister, which goes back to earlier in the year—he can now claim, along with the Germans, to be leading on the issue and seeking to drive it forward—is a mile away from what previously prevailed. We strongly support that new stance, and certainly think that the Minister was right not to go along with the final compromise put forward by the French presidency, which is rather technical, as some of us will have read in the quality newspapers, or heard on the wireless and seen on the television this morning.
The Minister has tried very hard to get a satisfactory agreement on journey times, which we applaud. He was right not to accept what was on offer, and we wish him well in the discussions next month. He has warned us—I am not criticising him, far from it—that it may not be as easy as some people think to bridge the huge gulf that still exists between the southern states and the more northern states of the Community, where the electorate feel strongly and, let us be honest, have much higher standards of animal welfare.

Dr. Robert Spink: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the RSPCA special operations unit trailed 21 vehicles during their journey from the United Kingdom to European destinations and that 14 of those exceeded the


15-hour limit without providing food, drink and rest for the animals? What action does he think that the British Government should take to prevent such practice?

Dr. Strang: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raises that point. I add my congratulations to the compliments paid by the Minister to the work of the RSPCA in that area.
That brings me to a point that I want to develop. For some time, the Labour party has advocated a licensing scheme for lorry drivers and hauliers. Of course, we were very pleased when subsequently the European Commission included among its package of proposals last year a European licensing scheme. Unfortunately, its implementation is not likely to be achieved in the short run, so we would like the British Government to go ahead with a national licensing scheme. That would stipulate that if a haulier were to move animals over a substantial distance—obviously it would not apply to normal, short journeys—such as the distances involved in cross-channel journeys, the haulier and its and driver would require a licence.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture, say that the Committee was interested in such an approach, although it was not identical to what we are advocating. The scheme would require high standards of hauliers and drivers and provide some training, advice and guidance for drivers. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, those of us with some experience of farming, as he has, know that the most stressful time for animals is when they are loaded on and unloaded off vehicles. It is perfectly possible for animals to be transported in reasonable conditions, although, sadly, it is also possible for them to be transported in appalling conditions, and we have seen some disgraceful examples of that which we want to eliminate.

Mr. Waldegrave: rose—

Dr. Strang: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman soon, as I am keen to hear his view.
Although the Labour party advocates a national licensing scheme, we would prefer a European scheme. Before the Minister intervenes, I would like to put to him the grounds on which he criticises the scheme, so that I may better understand it.
If the scheme were implemented, a haulier would lose its licence in the UK if it did not comply with it and was found to be treating animals cruelly. It is galling to see on television an individual driving lorries on to vessels going across the channel when most people involved know that that person had been convicted of animal cruelty. That upsets and angers people. Obviously, it would never happen under our proposal.
I may be putting it too strongly, but I understand the Minister's objection. He thinks that the scheme could be applied in the UK—remember we are talking not only about the movement of animals across the channel but through the United Kingdom and across long distances in Scotland and the animals being looked after well during that transportation—but that there would be nothing to stop hauliers taking animals across the channel and immediately moving the animals to another vehicle.
My response to that criticism is that it would be bound to increase the costs of transporting animals such as sheep. We are not advocating a ban on the movement of live sheep across the channel, although we want the number of live sheep transported to decrease as quickly as possible because we are not happy about it. That would enormously increase the cost of the operation. It would be a financial penalty if, once across the channel, the animals had to be unloaded and put on a second vehicle. Therefore that in itself would be a positive factor.
Secondly, would it not provide a tremendous focus for people on the continent if they understood the extent of the cruelty? It would provide a focus if it was known that the British people had laid down conditions to be met by the lorry drivers when transporting animals, but that, on the continent, rather than meeting the conditions, those involved were unloading the animals and placing them on an unlicensed vehicle. I put that argument to the Minister and shall be happy to hear what he says.

Mr. Waldegrave: I hope that the House will forgive me for intervening, but this is an important point. The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech, and it will perhaps be helpful to the House to debate such issues, including that raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), which is similar.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point said, we believed that some people were not following the journey plan that they had given to our vets, and were running over the limit—the RSPCA had shown that to be so. Therefore, we introduced a recent amendment to the transport order so that anyone not adhering to the journey plan could be prosecuted here. That is as far as we can go in making the provision stick. The trouble is that I am told that people are doing what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) and I feared that they might—changing to foreign hauliers as soon as they have crossed the channel.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They switch contractors.

Mr. Waldegrave: As the hon. Gentleman says, they switch contractors.
Although I have introduced that amendment, and I think that it was a sensible thing to have done—anything that we can do, we shall do—it does not solve the problem. I do not rule out the suggestion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East. If we do not achieve in reasonable time a European licensing system—which the hon. Gentleman and I agree would be much better—we shall have to consider all the options again. I fear that the provision has not solved the problem, for the reason that I gave. It may put up the costs, but unfortunately people seem to be willing to accept that.

Dr. Strang: That has been a helpful exchange. The first sentence of the Minister's press release states:
Britain is to introduce national measures to improve welfare protection for animals during transport following the failure of the EC Agricultural Council to reach an agreement.
That was the point raised by the Minister. I cannot recall where it is stated in the press release, but the Minister certainly said that one of the pluses of the system was that authorities of the member states on the continent were to help the Government to police it. The Minister was effectively saying that Governments of the member states were not delivering their undertaking.

Mr. Waldegrave: The point is not that those Governments are not helping, but that they can only help us to provide evidence against British-originating hauliers, which they are doing.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: There is another way.

Mr. Waldegrave: If there is another method, as the hon. Member for Workington has suggested, I shall look at it. We shall not rule out anything. I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East—if we can achieve a Europewide system, it will be far better.

Dr. Strang: The Minister's intervention was constructive and helpful.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The options that vie are currently considering are whether to have a pan-European or a domestic licensing system. There is no reason why the Minister should not ask French Governments and other Governments bordering the channel to introduce licensing systems unilaterally. If they were to do that, we might—by tying up the licensing system with pre-transport arrangements for animals going into the mainland Community—be able to resolve the problem with licences rather than have a pan-European arrangement.

Dr. Strang: That is an interesting point. If we introduced a licensing scheme, perhaps the Germans, and even the French, might follow.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: I shall not give way, as I want to allow time for at least two more speeches before the end of the debate. I am sorry, but I have given way repeatedly.
It is surely accepted that the transportation of veal calves to crates is cruel. The House of Commons legislated because it is cruel. It is indefensible that, having deemed the system to be cruel—having said that it is wrong to put calves in narrow crates, raise them in relative darkness and feed them an artificial and unbalanced diet—we should transport our calves across the channel into precisely that system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, not only are we doing that, but we are buying back the veal from the continental producer. That cannot be defended.
Of course, we support the Minister's efforts at a European level. We are not persuaded of the Minister's legal advice. Much work is being done on the subject and I believe that there could well be a different legal position. That has nothing to do with transport, but is based on whether the—

Mr. James Clappison: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Strang: No, I have said that I shall not give way again.
The legal position is based on whether the calf directive is sufficient to block national action here. There are other arguments that I shall not develop this morning.
In a single market, it is one thing to export an inanimate object that is to be finished or a food ingredient such as grain or flour to be turned into bread, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about sentient creatures and have to adopt a different approach. That issue must appear on the agenda—it is not just a matter of the single market.

Mr. Clappison: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I am sorry, but the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) must resume his seat. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) has made it clear that he is not giving way.

Dr. Strang: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am certainly not giving way.
We support the Minister's efforts to achieve progress at a European level. That will be better for all the reasons that he gave—there are so many more animals involved and so much more cruelty and abuse will be eliminated if we act on a European level, not just a British one. However, that must not become an excuse for not doing everything that we can nationally. We must consider the subject in its entirety and take every possible action. It is the responsibility of all of us—Members of Parliament, farmers, transporters, slaughterers and the community—to prevent unnecessary cruelty to animals.

Mr. Roger Knapman: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on securing the Adjournment debate, which is very well-attended. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his speech. We have come to expect good speeches from him, but today's was particularly commendable as he has spent two trying days in Brussels. It is deliciously ironic that Opposition Members who are first in the Lobby to vote for ever-closer union and single institutional frameworks suddenly discover the logic of their own voting records and are surprised to realise that they have largely succeeded in neutering the mother of Parliaments—assuming that a mother can be neutered—through the consequences of their actions.
My right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned some of the protesters—a subject on which there has been much discussion. Many of the protesters are well-meaning people, but, sadly, those who represent rent-a-mob are not well-meaning and a number of them have been travelling around the countryside. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not think that the protesters have a lot of time on their hands. They tour the countryside picking up the dole wherever they happen to be—demonstrating against the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, committing mass trespass on my right hon. Friend's farm, travelling down to the docks. The only danger is that they may exceed the 48-hour directive.
I know from 30 years' experience just what an organisation the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals was in days gone by. There were sometimes 5,000 animals at market in a single day. The RSPCA inspectors were always present, and the relationship between them and the auctioneers was close. If an inspector came to us and said that an animal in the market was unfit to be there, it immediately went home or to the slaughterhouse.
I wish that I could say that I have had the same high respect for the RSPCA in recent years. Although it still performs much good work, it has become just another political lobby group. That is a very sad development, because I think that the RSPCA could have played a vital part in the hours question. I have listened to the arguments about whether there should be an eight, 10 or 15-hour limit on journeys, but I am not sure that that is the point.
We could decide upon a maximum journey length of 10 hours, but what if a journey takes only 11 hours? My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) mentioned the process of unloading and reloading and my right hon. Friend referred to the three-day rest which would have to be taken for the sake of an extra hour's journey, perhaps on a major motorway. I believe that there should be some discretion in this area and the RSPCA could play a role in enforcing that discretion. I hope that that organisation will get politics out of its system before we reach any more agreements with it.

Mr. Paul Marland: Is my hon. Friend aware that Professor Jeffcote at the veterinary school in Cambridge has undertaken scientific research with regard to stress on animals in transit and has collected substantial data about it? Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than plucking figures for journey times out of the air—whether it be eight hours, 10 hours or whatever—we should try to use scientific evidence as a basis for reaching decisions about the correct length of journey time for different animals?

Mr. Knapman: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend; I think that a lot more work should be done in that area. There is no "right" number of hours that animals should spend in transit. It may be highly convenient for parliamentary draftsmen and others to mention a number of hours as the basis of an agreement, but we should press for a certain amount of flexibility in the system. I suspect that Professor Jeffcote would find that the animals who were subjected to the activities of rent-a-mob as they passed through the ports suffered quite a bit of stress.
Once we have moved away from the views of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and others, the reality is that farmers thrive if their animals thrive. They want to sell their animals and by looking after them properly they increase the value of their stock. That point must not be overlooked. What would happen if there was a unilateral ban?

Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. When I intervened on the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) the hon. Gentleman undertook to answer later in his speech my question whether it was official Labour party policy to support the Bill of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). However, he failed to do that in his speech. Although he addressed the ambiguity of the law—a problem that we are all wrestling with—he did not come off the fence about that matter. Therefore, the House is entitled to conclude that Labour party Front Benchers do not support the Bill of the hon. Member for Carlisle.

Mr. Knapman: To be fair to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East, I think that he said that he agreed with certain points that the hon. Member for Carlisle made, but that he could not attend the debate on Friday, probably because he was busy elsewhere. The Labour party's paper on animal transport says:
we will seek a ban through the European Commission and Council of Ministers.
If that is what the Labour party intends to do, the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Carlisle cannot be

Labour party policy. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has not addressed that point, although he has been invited to do so several times this morning.

Mr. Clappison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. On the point about the legal advice to which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred, is my hon. Friend aware that when the Labour party was in power it received the O'Brien report, which contained legal advice that a unilateral ban of the sort that the hon. Member for Carlisle favours was not clearly justified? It is even less likely to be justified now because, under the Community's directives on calf production, the ground has been occupied. If a unilateral ban were imposed, this country would face a legal mess and the Commission may have warned the Government to that effect.

Mr. Knapman: That is a fair point. If the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has forgotten his own voting record, he may also have forgotten some of the finer points of the O'Brien report.

Mr. Waldegrave: I apologise for intervening in the debate once again, but I wish to assist the House. When a similar Bill was introduced by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Commission wrote to the British Government and said that such legislation would be contested. It is not simply a matter of my receiving legal advice; the Commission is extremely equivocal when it wants to be, but it knew that it would win any such case.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making the position clear. I understand that the hon. Member for Carlisle is seeking a unilateral ban on live exports. What would that achieve? What would happen to small calves? They will be born on the farm and killed on the farm, and not all farmers have suitable equipment for stunning and killing small calves on their farms. It would lead to immense cruelty, which is most unsatisfactory.
I thought that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East made more constructive points on the subject this morning than he has for some time. As the hon. Gentleman said, the best scenario is for a maximum number of calves to be slaughtered in British abattoirs. It will add on value—as the hon. Gentleman said, if an animal kills out at 50 per cent., it is better to transport a ton of carcass than two tons of live animals. It may also prove a boost to employment in this country. It is the best scenario for all those reasons.
I listened carefully to my right hon. Friend's speech and it seems that there are four main lines of attack. First, we are seeking a ban on veal crates throughout Europe; secondly, we are pressing the Commission for stronger enforcement of animal transport rules; thirdly, we are pressing for the licensing of hauliers; and, fourthly, we are seeking the co-operation of the meat industry in promoting meat exports and the development of British veal.
British farmers currently produce pink veal, but white veal is preferred on the continent. However, people used to prefer white bread until there was a campaign to persuade them to buy brown bread. We must make people understand that pink veal has been reared more humanely.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all his activities, which are extremely practical—unlike the suggestions offered by Labour Members, even assuming that they know what Labour party policy is.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am conscious of the time, so I will try to progress quickly with my speech and perhaps another hon. Member will be able to speak as well. I congratulate the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter) on introducing what has generally been a good and constructive debate—with the exception of the speech by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), which I think lowered the tone of the debate on occasion.
I think that the call by the hon. Member for Sutton for a broadsheet rather than a tabloid approach to the issue has been heeded. However, I believe that the hon. Gentleman lapsed into tabloid-speak twice in his own speech. On one occasion he described vegans as "unnatural", which I think was slightly pejorative. I will return to his other point later. However, he made an important speech which deserves a response.
I come from north Warwickshire, which is largely an agricultural area. Many of my farming constituents are unhappy about the veal trade and about many practices in other areas of agriculture. They prefer to send their animals to the nearest abattoir rather than transport them longer distances, even though they could make more money that way. It is not a matter of city and rural people having different views on the issue, as many of those in rural areas feel strongly about animal rights.

Mr. Marland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: No, I am trying to make quick progress.
Transporting animals in conditions which we define as cruel is wrong. We have a moral basis in the law that has been passed here which says that we will ban veal crates. Allowing animals to be transported and put in veal crates in other countries and seeking to reap profits from that undermines the basis of the law. That is why it is very important for the Government, not only to carry on the work they are doing to try to get a European ban on veal crates, but to ensure that there is the strongest condemnation of those who seek to make profits from what we have decided is wrong, cruel and immoral.
Exporting live animals in that way damages our good abattoirs. My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) recently tried to introduce a private Member's Bill on the export of live animals, and my hon. Friend has a long-term interest in the subject. He has drawn to my attention the closure of an abattoir in Nuneaton, with the loss of about 70 jobs which have now been exported. We must ensure that those jobs remain in this country.
Let us be clear that there is a real problem with EC law, but that legal opinion is, to some extent, divided. After all, legal opinion is often divided as lawyers, such as myself, make our money by arguing the different sides of a case. There is a strong argument for testing the law. There was a ban on exports in 1973, and there is an argument that that ban could be sustained, at least for a period, perhaps under article 36 of the treaty of Rome or article 20 of GATT. That could provide the basis for such a challenge to the law.
If they tested the law, the Government would show the strength of their opposition to the trade, and they would also put pressure on the southern European countries to change their views. Even if we lost the court case, it would give a strong discouragement to business men in the UK who are trying to make a profit out of this trade.
I welcome the Minister's convincing efforts to try to change the law in relation to veal crates. But if that European law requires some sweetening—perhaps for Greece or Portugal—let us ensure that we make some bilateral contacts soon to discuss that and to ensure that they understand that we are prepared to go in that direction. In the mean time, we should promote a system of licensing for hauliers and introduce tough regulations, high standards of training and vehicle supervision in which the licences can be withdrawn for any breach. Perhaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) suggested, we can make bilateral contacts with France and other countries to try to ensure that they introduce high standards. That is important and urgent.
I shall now refer to the position in Warwickshire. In my county and in neighbouring Coventry, six people have died as a result of the veal trade. Five people died in the air crash, while a demonstrator died under the wheels of a lorry. There is anger in my area about that, and it has had a significant impact upon local people. It is right at this point to declare an interest, in that I am the parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I hold no brief for them on this matter, and I have not discussed it with them.
There have been long-term demonstrations at Coventry airport which are putting enormous pressures on the local constabulary. If the trade is not banned, the implications must be looked into. I ask the Minister to approach the Home Office with regard to the considerable concerns felt in Warwickshire about the impact of the trade on the police force. There are enormous pressures on the police, as 50 officers are likely to be lost during the next year. There can be no recruitment within a two-year period and, at the end of this year, 16 per cent. of community beats will not be covered.
There is an immediate financial crisis as a result of the financial settlement upon the police this year. If the protest continues as a result of the veal trade, the implications for Warwickshire police are, if not disastrous, enormously serious. Police stations could be shut and officer posts lost. That could lead to a lack of policing in Warwickshire. Will the Minister approach the Home Secretary, not just on behalf of Warwickshire but on behalf of Essex, where there have been problems with policing at Brightlingsea?

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. O'Brien: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in the matter, but I am trying to ensure that one of his colleagues has time to make a speech.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman is referring to my constituency.

Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way as I have referred to Brightlingsea.

Mr. Jenkin: There have been confrontations with the police at Brightlingsea. In view of what the hon. Gentleman has said, will he join me in pleading with the protesters—who, after all, want to keep public support and are in danger of losing that support by confronting the police—to stop sitting down in front of lorries and confronting the police? It is not the veal trade which is causing the police to be at Brightlingsea in large numbers, it is the protesters. If they took a more responsible attitude, they would gain more public support, and they


would not be costing our constabularies money and threatening the police activities to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

Mr. O'Brien: I shall come to that in a moment, as it is important. Those issues must be addressed and, as a result, I may go up to my time limit.
I shall finish the point that I was I making. As a result of difficulties in the negotiations about the trade, police forces face long-term public order problems in the areas concerned. There is a need for those funding difficulties to be addressed by the Government. There are unexpected difficulties, and there has been a high settlement on some police forces this year.
The position in Warwickshire is worrying. The Home Office needs to create a fund which ensures that those forces which have extraordinary public order problems can call upon it to provide the resources which they need. Otherwise, there will be severe dangers of police forces being unable to carry out their duties effectively at the end of the year. I ask the Minister to make representations to the Home Office.
I come now to the point raised by the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and others in relation to the policing of protests. I agreed with some of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), although I disagreed with others. I entirely agree with his important point that the police are neutral in the matter. Some officers may support the veal trade, while others may disagree. That is not the point. They are paid by the citizens of this country to enforce the law, and that means doing two things—ensuring that the roads are clear for the lorries to pass and ensuring that people can exercise their civil right to protest. It is important for the police to observe both of those, and they know that.
I was pleased to hear the Minister say that he was "proud" of the peaceful protesters who exercised their civil liberty to demonstrate their real concerns. I welcome that statement by the right hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Sutton read out a number of press cuttings, one of which referred to a senior officer in Warwickshire. Extremists do get involved in many events and can often inflict great damage to the cause, but causes such as this do not depend solely on what happens during a protest. The strength of the arguments is what matters, and many decent and honourable people involved in the protest—whether they are Conservatives, Labour supporters or Liberal Democrats—properly want to peacefully protest their interest in raising the issue, and that should be welcomed. They have a strong argument, and are exercising their right to protest.
This trade is, in my view, immoral. While it is not breaching the law, it breaches the spirit of the law by seeking to make a profit out of something which we accept is cruel and unjust. I very much hope that the efforts of the Government to try to ensure that we have an EC ban on veal crates, and also a licensing system not only in this country and neighbouring countries but throughout Europe will be sustained. That will effectively ensure that animals will be transported and kept in the best conditions. That is what we are looking for, and that is what we can get.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I have little time, but I wish to speak in the debate because a great many of my constituents object vehemently to this trade. As the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) said, many people who object to the trade are Tory voters. What outrages them most is learning from the television and the radio that we have given up the power to do anything about it. I do not accept that. I regard this as a sovereign House, and I am not prepared to be lectured by MAFF officials about what the House can and cannot legislate for.
I am fortunate enough, I hope, to have secured an opportunity to present a Bill under the 10-minute rule which will restore to the Minister the powers that he needs to apply a ban, if he considers that appropriate, and I urge Opposition Members to support it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Spectac Ltd.

1 pm

Mr. John Hutton: I am grateful for the opportunity today to draw attention to what I believe to be a serious risk to many of our citizen—the unscrupulous way in which many foreign-based overseas recruitment companies operate in the United Kingdom.
I want to illustrate a particular instance of this abuse. In the weeks leading up to Christmas 1994, 27 people became the innocent victims of a carefully orchestrated criminal conspiracy. They each lost £8,000, money that none of them could afford to lose. The 27 came from all parts of the United Kingdom, but mostly from our shipbuilding towns and cities. Eleven of them are from my constituency, where, as the Minister will know, unemployment has rocketed over the past few years as Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd. yard has declined.
All 11 constituents were recruited by a Dutch company, Spectac, based in Dordrecht and operated as a one-man business by Colin Martin. The workers, who were welders, platers, riggers and electricians—many of them used to work in shipbuilding—were told that they would he working on five-year fixed-term contracts in Guam, and would be paid £4,000 a month tax-free.
Before signing any of the contracts, many of my constituents took advice from their financial advisers, who told them that this was a safe bet and to proceed with the contracts. Many of them borrowed money, some remortgaged their properties.
Spectac recruited these workers from a variety of sources. The company placed advertisements in several British regional newspapers, and it certainly used the jobshop operated by a local enterprise council in Invergordon. I am grateful to the Minister for providing me with that information. Others recruited have testified that they were notified by local jobcentres, but in the main, details of the recruitment were circulated through a network of word-of-mouth contacts of the type common in the offshore construction industry.
The company in Guam, Offshore Corporation, would require each worker to deposit a confidence or integrity bond worth nearly £8,000, which would be repaid monthly over the duration of the five-year contract. The downpayment of £5,000 was supposed to be a sign of good faith on the part of the workers towards Offshore Corporation.
Inevitably, the confidence bond money was duly handed over to Spectac. The workers and their money were flown out to Thailand and later to the Philippines. The tickets, I believe, were paid for out of the proceeds of the integrity bonds.
After a few days in Thailand and the Philippines, the truth became apparent. There was no company called Offshore Corporation. There were no jobs in Guam, and the money—by this time totalling more than £200,000—had disappeared, along with the villains of this whole dismal episode: Ronnie Hydes, Gerry O'Connor and Colin Martin himself.
There is some doubt about whether Colin Martin was a participant in the conspiracy. I have no opinion on that matter one way or the other, but I am alarmed by some evidence that I received today purporting to come from Spectac in Holland and claiming to provide evidence of a

payment guarantee that it had lodged with Barclays bank in Jersey to cover any problems with the non-repayment of the integrity bond. That document, I am confident, is completely fraudulent—and it raises doubts about Colin Martin's participation in the whole business.
Unfortunately, the whereabouts of Ronny Hydes and Gerry O'Connor are not known; and the chances of recovering the stolen moneys are small. On 14 February, Spectac ceased to exist as a legal entity under Dutch law. Colin Martin is thought to be somewhere in Thailand, outside the effective reach of any legal action in the United Kingdom, and probably anywhere else.
My constituents have been devastated by these events. In short, they have been exploited and ripped off.

Ms Angela Eagle: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing a debate on this important subject. Bob Neil, a constituent of mine—the shipbuilding connection is again obvious—was also one of the 27 people affected. I can confirm that exactly the same happened to him as happened to my hon. Friend's 11 constituents. He too stands to lose £8,000 under the contract exposed by the good work that my hon. Friend is doing.

Mr. Hutton: I am aware of the difficulties that my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Bob Neil, is experiencing. They are exactly the same as those experienced by the other 27 innocent victims of the crime.
This is not the first time that Ronny Hydes and Gerry O'Connor have perpetrated this kind of fraud. They were well known conmen and cowboys. The sad fact is that they are still able to perpetrate this fraud in the United Kingdom.
I want to discuss how the Government can respond to what I believe is an acute problem. We are dealing not just with work outside the European Union. There is also well documented evidence of abuse on construction sites in Germany, where many skilled British workers have found themselves ripped off—their wages have not been paid, and so on. Mr. Bob Neil's case is a stark reminder of just how vulnerable many of our fellow citizens are. They never expected to be out of work, but they possess valuable skills, and they find themselves facing the dismal prospect of years out of work in this country. Naturally, they tend to look overseas for employment opportunities.
I do not believe it fair to say that the 27 people involved were gullible: they were innocent victims of a crime. These events highlight deficiencies and loopholes in what is left of our regulatory framework after deregulation. They also highlight a number of gaps and loopholes in the law. Unless we deal with those problems, it is likely that they will be repeated again and again in the years ahead.
We know that cowboys operate in the overseas recruitment business, often through front companies that act as agents for undisclosed principals. We need seriously to tackle and confront such problems.
Probably no regulatory system can he foolproof, but we can do a number of things to make it harder for the cowboys to operate. First, the Government should look at the arrangements for checking the bona fides of foreign-based recruitment companies that operate in the United Kingdom. A recruitment company that has no operational base in the United Kingdom falls outside the scope of the Employment Agencies Act 1973, so it is not


possible under UK domestic legislation for enforcement action to be taken against a foreign-based recruitment agency.
Effective action will require co-operation between European Union member states if we are to deal with the problem satisfactorily. I hope that there will be a chance, under the French presidency, of another look at the posted workers directive to see whether there is any prospect of breathing life into that initiative. I recognise that, if it has life left in it, it might benefit only workers who work in the EU. Of course, the case that I am highlighting goes outside the EU, and would not be covered by the posted workers directive.
Secondly, the Department of Employment should ensure that all Government agencies are properly advised about consulting the overseas placing unit when handling overseas job places. That is especially necessary when job places are being advertised by a recruitment company. I understand that that did not happen in the case of the Invergordon job shop, which is run by the local enterprise company and is part of the Highlands and Islands enterprise agency.
If an overseas recruitment company were able to operate in this country through agencies established by central Government without any effective procedures for ensuring that proper information was disclosed between the agencies, there would be a serious abrogation of responsibility. I am prepared to accept that this case may be an example of a one-off, a mistake, but there were guidelines. It seems that they were not followed in this instance. I hope that it is a one-off. If it is not, the Minister should seriously consider what has happened. It is one of the ways in which we should have regard to how recruitment agencies are operating.
We must, of course, operate within a framework of European law in partnership with European Union member states, but there is a case for the Government examining the operation of the Employment Agencies Act 1973 and tightening some of their administrative arrangements for disseminating information and best practice in advising local job shops, job clubs and jobcentres about overseas recruitment and vacancies.
Thirdly, measures need to be taken to deal with integrity bonds. It is this aspect of the Spectac case that concerns me most. The Government should consider making it unlawful for companies to require the payment of such bonds in the United Kingdom. At the least, there should be more effective control over how the moneys are to be handled.
If it is considered inappropriate to make the payment of integrity bonds unlawful, there is a case for saying, for example, that any payments should be held on account by trustees and not, as in the Spectac case, paid directly by the 27 workers recruited by Spectac to the recruitment agency. When that happens, there is little or no effective control over the moneys, including where they eventually end up. In the Spectac case, we still do not know where the moneys ended up.
The Government should consider amending the guidelines issued by the overseas placing unit to overseas jobseekers. In particular, the guidance should be amended to warn against paying into integrity or confidence bonds. There is nothing in the guidelines issued by the overseas placing unit that refers directly or indirectly to the

problems associated with integrity bonds. There is a warning about working overseas and not being covered by United Kingdom employment protection legislation, but that misses the point. Most people working in the far east, for example, would assume that that legislation does not extend to Guam and Thailand.
The problem lies more with some of the sharp practices that are increasingly finding their way into the recruitment agency business. Integrity bonds are inherently dangerous and dodgy. The Government should carefully consider the guidance they have already issued to overseas job seekers, with a view to spelling out the problems associated with the payment of integrity bonds.
It may be appropriate, in the light or wake of the Spectac case, for the Department of Employment to consider advising the editors of British regional and national newspapers against handling any advertisement from foreign or domestic recruitment agencies that require payment of integrity bonds. That would involve the Government in recommending editors and newspapers generally to engage in an easy and standard form of inquiry.
Our newspapers provide the main forum for the cowboys' operations. The Government should require an investigation to determine whether any vacancy being handled or placed through any agency requires the payment of an integrity bond. If the Government are not convinced of the need to make such payments unlawful, they should introduce a requirement that advertisements should warn the public of the dangers or hazards associated with paying integrity or confidence bonds.
We must bring the perpetrators of these crimes to justice. I know that the Minister is extremely competent, but I do not believe that her jurisdiction extends into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I hope, however, that the Government will be in contact with the Dutch and Thai authorities to ensure that Hydes, O'Connor and Martin are all held to account for their actions.
It is clear that no criminal offence took place within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom courts, but there may have been violations of the Dutch criminal code. I hope that the Government will raise the extradition of Hydes, O'Connor and Martin with the Dutch Government. British citizens have been the victims of an appalling fraud. That being so, I hope that the Government will do all they can to ensure that justice is seen to be done in this case.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Miss Ann Widdecombe): I congratulate the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) on obtaining the debate and on raising an important matter. He will have increased public awareness of the problem, and I congratulate him on that, too. I congratulate him also on having his debate at such a "seasonal" hour. I hope that afterwards I do not go on autopilot and go home forgetting that there is the rest of the parliamentary day.
First, I shall respond to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific points about what the Government might seek to do to counter what is, fortunately, a rare but serious type of fraud.
We shall strengthen the guidance that we give to warn job seekers about the dangers of integrity bonds. I take the opportunity to reinforce the advice that we already give job seekers, which is that, if they find in a magazine


or newspaper an advertisement of employment abroad, they should take it up and have it checked through their jobcentre with our overseas placing unit, about which I wish to say more in a moment. That is a sensible measure, which will greatly increase the protection offered to job seekers.
European legislation will not help in dealing with the tiny minority of fraudsters who come within the terms of the debate. The Department has, however, taken up with the Dutch Minister with employment responsibilities the matter of illegal agencies that are based in the Netherlands. Officials will be taking discussions forward.
We have already taken steps to warn job seekers about bogus agencies, through a poster and leaflet campaign. In the light of the debate and in the light of the Spectac incident, I shall examine the need to refresh the campaign.
I do not entirely share the hon. Gentleman's view that we should be making representations to newspapers. Newspapers are already well aware that it is not in their interests to carry advertisements that place their readers at risk. On the other hand, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that bogus agencies do not make their purposes entirely clear in newspaper advertisements. I think that he will accept that it is quite difficult for newspapers to come to judgments. Often, however, they contact the Department for advice when they think that there is an element of doubt. There is already some contact between newspapers and the Department.

Ms Eagle: Is there a list of companies that are known to have been fraudulent in the past that the Department of Employment could refer to or begin to keep, if it does not do so already? At least those companies would have to keep changing their names and taking on new forms if they were intent on trying to perpetrate the same fraud over and over again.

Miss Widdecombe: When I come to discuss the overseas placing unit, I shall explain that one of the purposes is to check on the bona fides of job vacancies that are advertised from abroad. Given its experience, the unit would obviously have knowledge of companies where there was established fault or doubt. That is not information that would be held centrally in every jobcentre. We have the unit as a point of referral, so that we can try to keep a level of expertise.
I turn to the specific case that the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness has raised.
I wrote to him on 12 February and set out the steps that the Employment Service had taken to establish how the vacancies had been drawn to the attention of job seekers. I confirmed that it was not, in fact, through the Employment Service, and I also told him the checks that the Employment Service makes on vacancies that come to it from employers in other countries.
Of course we deplore completely the activities of bogus employers who trade in entirely fictitious jobs overseas with the sole intention of defrauding job seekers. It is a practice that is known to us, but it is, as I said earlier, thankfully, still rare. Where and when we can, we are taking steps to ensure that it happens even less often. I would advise anybody considering paying an integrity bond to take legal advice before doing so. They may well end up having to pay a solicitor, only to find that they are advised not to take the job, but that is infinitely better than losing thousands of pounds on an integrity bond.
This very unfortunate incident must be seen in context so that we can tackle it appropriately. About 5.7 million people change jobs each year. Many do so through informal channels, such as friends, colleagues or newspaper advertisements. The Employment Service and the private sector recruitment agencies have a valuable part to play, both in helping people to find work and in stimulating a flexible labour market.
The Employment Service is charged by the Government, of course, with offering unemployed people—especially the long-term unemployed and others at a disadvantage in the labour market—help and advice in finding work. In the last full year, 1.64 million people were placed into work and 2.27 million vacancies were handled, so that puts this problem into context.
From those volumes of business, therefore, we must bear in mind the infrequency of the type of incident that we are debating. Although we need remedies—and we do—we must keep them in proportion to the problem; otherwise, we would run the risk of prejudicing a wide range of good practices for all parties in the labour market, and thus reduce our ability to service legitimate vacancies from employers, including employers overseas, which can bring real benefit to skilled individuals from Britain. In that context, the posted workers directive, even if fully implemented, would have had nil impact on this case.
The Employment Service will therefore continue to deal with vacancies overseas, as do UK-based private employment agencies. Sadly, we cannot take direct action on foreign-based employment agencies, but I will come back to what the employment agencies, the Employment Service and its overseas placing unit can do, and in most cases what they are already carrying out, to minimise the risks of sharp practice.
The case that the hon. Gentleman has rightly drawn to the attention of the House is highly serious. The company that he has described—Spectac—is reported to have responded to an advertisement placed in a Dutch newspaper calling for the submission of tenders for the supply of labour to work on a barge on the north Pacific ocean island of Guam. The company that placed the advertisement, variously described as the "Offshore Corporation of Chicago" or the "Offshore Corporation of Bangkok", is bogus. Spectac, a Dutch-based company, run by a director of British origin but resident in the Netherlands, had agreed to obtain an integrity bond of US$12,000 from applicants as a condition of securing the contract for the supply of labour.
Men were then recruited from various parts of Great Britain towards the end of 1994. Some were indeed unemployed; others gave up full-time jobs to take up the vacancies. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, many of them ill-advisedly raised the money for the bond through taking out loans.
The men went to the far east in early December, only to become stranded in Manila, where it became clear to them that the jobs did not exist. The director of Spectac returned from Manila to Bangkok, with one of the men from the final group to leave Britain, and there they reported to the police the activities of the Offshore Corporation. One of the directors was then held by the Thai police for a few days, but, allegedly, was released by them after promising to find his partner. He and his partner have since disappeared. Spectac has now been investigated by the Dutch authorities and closed down.
It is known that the unfortunate victims of the fraud came from different parts of Britain. There is, however, evidence that areas of the country where men have recently been made redundant were specifically targeted by Spectac. That may well explain why men in the hon. Gentleman's constituency were particularly affected. Many of his constituents are skilled shipbuilding workers, who supposedly would have been able to find the money for the integrity bond from redundancy payments.
There is also evidence that the highlands region of Scotland was targeted by Spectac, probably because it, too, has a large number of ex-employees from the oil fabrication industry, who have skills and a source of capital. But after exhaustive inquiries throughout the Employment Service, concentrating particularly on the highlands region, there is no evidence that jobcentres were involved in what is a profoundly regrettable incident. I believe that the hon. Gentleman might have been led to suspect that my Department was involved, because many people learned of the bogus vacancies through the Invergordon job shop.
The Invergordon job shop is run by three local enterprise companies reporting to Highlands and Islands Enterprise. Two years ago, Highlands and Islands Enterprise recognised that the oil fabrication industry, on which the economy of the area around the Moray firth had depended heavily for two decades, was facing significant decline. Along with the increased efforts to ensure the survival of the existing businesses, and the provision of advisory services, Highlands and Islands Enterprise, in conjunction with the three local enterprise companies, set up a redundancy counselling and placement service, known as the job shop. The job shop has, to date, been successful in placing some 1,100 redundant oil fabrication workers.
I understand that, on 3 November, the Invergordon job shop was contacted by the director of Spectac Ltd. in the Netherlands, notifying the management there of an impending contract in Thailand between his company and the so-called Offshore Corporation of Chicago, with the potential of up to 500 jobs. Seven days later, Spectac again contacted the job shop to say that its director was in Thailand, preparing to sign the contract, and gave details of the staff required.
In total, 54 people on the job shop's books were contacted to find out whether they would be interested in the contract. But it was stressed to them at that stage that nothing was known about the job or the company, and that the approach at that point was entirely tentative, to ascertain—

Mr. Hutton: Did the Invergordon job shop, at any time prior to contacting those 54 individuals, discuss Spectac and the contract with the overseas placing unit?

Miss Widdecombe: I shall come to that point, and will also point out that, when doubts were raised in the job shop's mind, it went to great lengths to contact all those who were on its books and who had originally expressed interest, to point out to them that they absolutely should not enter into a contract with Spectac, because the company's bond was illegal. Job shop staff contacted all 54 individuals. They even contacted 20 or so other people from the Easter Ross area, who had come to them unsolicited. It then gave them the same advice.
In the short time left, I want to say something about the overseas placing unit, and so shall leave my rather fuller description of what went on. I hope that I have shown from that rather brief description that the job shop in Invergordon took every last possible step to inform people that there was a severe risk in paying over an integrity bond. Indeed, it did more than that, and advised them not to do it.
The overseas placing unit, which is based at the Employment Service head office in Sheffield, provides guidance to our jobcentres on giving advice to job seekers about work abroad. It supplies guidance to job seekers directly and to employers both in the UK and abroad on placing vacancies.
It is supported in Employment Service English regions, Scotland and Wales by a network of experts known as Euro-advisers. They are connected by information technology to a central clearing point in Brussels and to other Euroadvisers in the European Union, so that they can exchange details of vacancies and information on living and working conditions. On average, the unit receives 3,000 inquiries a month on all questions about working overseas, not only in Europe but many other parts of the world.
In 1994, 950 people were placed by the Employment Service in jobs overseas, but as we can see from the subject of the debate, there can be special difficulties with such vacancies. Because they are overseas, it makes it difficult for my officials in jobcentres. For that reason—I cannot stress this too strongly—jobcentres may not act on overseas vacancies until the vacancies have been vetted by the overseas placing unit.
The overseas placing unit runs several checks on the contract of employment and job description. It seeks a letter from a lawyer, written in English, stating that the company is bona fide and clarification on the availability of work permits. If the prospective employer cannot meet any of those stipulations, the vacancy is refused, and may not be handled by our jobcentres.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order.

Senior Officers (Employment Conditions)

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for granting me the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces for being here this afternoon to respond to it.
Some colleagues and others listening to the debate will have believed that I applied for the debate to highlight the circumstances surrounding the case of my constituent, Air Chief Marshall Sir Andrew—otherwise known as Sandy—Wilson, KCB. Sir Sandy had an excellent record of service in the Royal Air Force for more than 30 years. He began as a formidable fighter pilot and subsequently assumed the initial command of our forces during Operation Granby and was promoted to the post of Commander-in-Chief of RAF Germany from 1991 to 1993. He is now Commander-in-Chief of RAF personnel at RAF Innsworth, a four-star appointment, and he is the third most senior officer in the RAF.
Given that exemplary record of public service, many were surprised to read of Sir Sandy's early retirement. I should make it clear for the record that it was his decision to seek early retirement and, on balance, bearing in mind all the circumstances, I believe that he made the correct decision. I hope that it will now be possible for him to retire with all the dignity and honour that he deserves and that his retirement, terminal grant and redundancy terms will be generous and befitting of an officer of his stature, and as recommended in paragraphs 63, 64 and 65 of the latest report of the Senior Salaries Review Body.
Before I move on to the substantive part of my speech, I want to highlight the case of Private Clegg. It is vital that the Ministry of Defence considers the yellow card instructions so that our soldiers carrying out their duty can know that they have the full protection of the law.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am not aware that a private is a senior officer in the armed forces.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I just say that there is a welter of public indignation at the way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may chose to say all sorts of things in different debates, but this morning he must confine himself to senior officers only.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We should have no doubts at the outset of the origins of overstretch. The armed services will number 236,000 in April 1995—a reduction of 22 per cent. since April 1990—but in general terms there is every hope that the pressure placed upon service men post-"Options for Change" will ease. I fervently hope that the Northern Ireland peace process holds so that it will be possible to reduce the number of roulement units in Northern Ireland, perhaps reversing the increase from four to six which took place in 1992.
There are other reasons for confidence that the conditions of stretch in our armed forces will be reduced, such as the creation of a Territorial Army unit for the Falklands, which will reduce the pressure for roulement

units to cover those islands. However, it is likely that commitments elsewhere, such as in Bosnia, will always remain.
I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted in full the recommendations of the independent Review Body on Armed Forces Pay. The average pay rise will be 2.6 per cent., taking a corporal to a possible maximum of £18,527.
Furthermore, it is right that we continue to reward the most senior officers for the significant and increasing managerial responsibilities that they are now asked to undertake. We must pay realistic rates if we are to retain those with the skills and the ability to carry out senior officers' responsibilities. At £57,766 for a brigadier and £97,430 for a general, I have no doubt that, in comparison with the private sector, the taxpayer is receiving value for money.
The report of the Senior Salaries Review Body, published this month, offers some interesting comparisons between top officials. It recommends that a permanent secretary should be paid between £90,000 and £150,000, with an average of £120,000, a top judge should be paid £121,000 and the Chief of he Defence Staff should be paid £121,130. Those figures are all comparable.
I shall say a few words about the review of pay and conditions of service men being undertaken by Michael Bett, which is due to report to Ministers shortly and will cover the period up to 2010. The signs are that the Bett review is moving in the right direction and the Ministry of Defence has said that its findings will be published and subject to consultation. I welcome that.
However, we should recognise that there are differences between civilian and service life. Disruption through frequent postings is the recognised norm in all three services. Stability for those with young families should be considered and, where practical, longer postings should be the norm. There is also scope for better targeting of travel and other allowances for those who need them most. The children of Army and RAF officers facing frequent overseas postings in mid-career deserve a stable education. Boarding school allowances have an important role to play in that. We must also recognise the pressures that come from overseas postings and transient lifestyles on service men's wives who are unable to establish permanent homes, second incomes, or stable networks of friends.
Fair redundancy terms for senior officers also need to be considered in the context of the Bett review. According to recent media stories, eight major-generals, 32 brigadiers and 48 colonels will be asked to retire early under the "Front Line First" study. The details of the settlement by which a major-general will receive a total first-year pay-off of £210,000 seem fair in the circumstances. That figure is made up of 18 months salary worth £90,000, a further severance payment of £90,000 and a first year's pension of £30,000.
Paragraph 64 of the report of the latest Senior Salaries Review Body states:
We recommend that three-star officers and above who are retired early as a result of current and future restructuring should receive compensation on terms no worse proportionately than apply to junior officers in their service.
Given the age and current earnings of senior officers, such sentiments are only fair.
It is vital that we continue to attract the high-calibre officers on whom the future of our services rest. Ministry of Defence figures from the statistical bulletin in June show that while recruitment was above target for the Navy and on par for the Air Force, in the Army there was a 20 per cent. shortfall between target and actual officer recruitment—784 compared with 967. In comparison, the shortfall for 1990 was only 4 per cent., based on a much higher level of recruitment. A single year does not make a trend, but those figures should be noted with concern.
The public perception of the status of senior officers, including their remuneration, promotion and retirement conditions, will affect the recruitment prospects of officers at junior level. We should in no way compromise the level of talent in officers and other ranks whom we are prepared to recruit.
Again, the 17th report of the Review Body on Senior Salaries states:
The quality of the senior officer structure depends on the ability of the services to recruit and then retain sufficient young men and women of the highest calibre to rise to two-star rank and above.
The most important part comes next. It states:
In our last report we expressed concern that the reduction in career prospects could impair the recruitment and retention of junior officers. We remain highly concerned that the highly publicised reductions in armed forces strength may deter many high-quality individuals from pursuing a military career.
In this short debate, it has not been possible to cover all aspects of employment conditions of senior service men but I hope that I have highlighted a few concerns so that people of the highest calibre will continue to be recruited and to make their complete career in our armed forces. The public have a right to be proud that our armed forces are the most professional in the world. The Gulf, the Falklands and the Northern Ireland campaign truly demonstrated that, and I hope that it will always be so.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on securing this debate on such an important and timely topic. Some of the points that he raised went a little wider than the subject of the debate, but I would like to reassure him that a number of those points will be raised, and I shall deal with them at some length, during the Army debate tomorrow which, knowing his interest and support for the armed forces, I very much hope he will try to attend.
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about the great responsibilities placed on our service men and women at all levels, and the crucial importance of our continuing ability to recruit and retain people of the first quality. That is one of the most important challenges that face the armed services for the future. It is precisely with that objective in mind that my right hon. and learned Friend The Secretary of State commissioned the independent review of service career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service that is being conducted for the Ministry of Defence by Mr. Michael Bett and his team. I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to hear that Mr. Bett and his team have gone to enormous lengths to produce what I am sure will be a worthwhile and interesting report.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State expects to receive Mr. Bett's report at the end of March. The review is very wide-ranging, as my hon. Friend knows. It covers pay and allowances structures, pensions, rank and career structures, housing and accommodation policy and terms and conditions of service, all of which, as my hon. Friend rightly knows, are extremely important to service men and women.
The review's purpose is to ensure that, as we approach the early years of the 21st century, arrangements are in place that are sufficiently robust and flexible and meet our needs in terms of our ability to attract and retain people of the highest quality to perform the very demanding tasks that we ask of people at all levels. In particular, the review was needed against the background of change in the deployment of the armed forces and the very profound changes—not all of them for the better—in our national life. Mr. Bett and his team will thus be taking the most careful account, among other things, of changes in the nature of the tasks which our service men and women are expected to perform, in the skills that they need and in the work force from which they are recruited.
At the same time, the review will certainly take the fullest account of the particular requirements and ethos of service life. That is an extremely important matter for the armed forces and one for which we shall have a very high regard and care. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of that point and I want to assure him that it is especially reflected in Mr. Bett's terms of reference. It is a matter that we shall consider very carefully indeed.
As for recent and current recruitment trends, lower targets resulting from the "Options for Change" rundown have meant that we have had few problems in attracting sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and well-motivated young people to a career in the services, even though applications for both officers and other ranks are down on previous years. My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear, however, that premature voluntary release remains at very low levels, although there is some evidence of increased competition from the civilian job market as the economy improves.
As recruiting targets rise in the coming years, it may be more difficult to attract young people in the eligible age groups. That, as my hon. Friend will understand, would be a very serious matter for the forces. We are therefore spending great time and effort to see how we can better manage those issues. As my hon. Friend knows, studies about recruiting have been under way for some time and some have gone very well indeed.
My hon. Friend referred to allowances, on which we are expecting Mr. Bett to make recommendations. My hon. Friend has identified issues such as the degree of stability or otherwise in service life, which will obviously be a very important background to the review team's thinking because they influence the costs incurred by service men and women and their families as a result of the requirements of service life.
My hon. Friend might like to know that, last week, I met an outstanding brigadier who has served for 30 years in the Army, during which time he has had 28 jobs in 14 countries involving 17 home moves. He remains triumphantly happily married with two very beautiful daughters, but it is an appropriate moment to pay the warmest possible tribute to the wives of our service men who put up with a great deal and do not derive great confidence from the fatuous sniping by the Opposition.
Until we receive Mr. Bett's report, however, it would obviously be quite wrong for me to speculate about his likely recommendations or to comment on the speculation in the House or by the media.

Mr. Peter Hardy: The Minister should be assured that this will not be a fatuous snipe. Will the Minister tell us when the Bett report will be published? Will it be available to hon. Members and will the House have an opportunity to debate it, as it deals with important matters?

Mr. Soames: I have never heard anything fatuous from the hon. Gentleman in my life and I totally exclude him from my remarks.
The Bett report is not yet with my right hon. and learned Friend. We expect it quite shortly. We will wish to give it the most prudent and careful consideration. Whether it should be debated in the House is plainly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will go to great efforts to ensure that what is in the Bett report is disseminated widely throughout the services and to all those who are interested in it. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's attention to it; if he wishes to come and discuss it when it is published, I should be happy for him to do so.
As well as looking at the time scale of Mr. Bett's review, we are seized of the need for today's pay levels to meet recruiting and retention needs. On 9 February, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was glad to announce that the Government are meeting in full the recommendation on service pay of the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay and the Senior Salaries Review Body.
I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to the claims made in the past few days by the Opposition about the pay of senior members of the armed forces. The figures on which the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) has been trying to drum up indignation compare movement in the earnings of the armed forces with rises in average earnings. It is not surprising that the pay of the most senior ranks has risen more and that of the junior ranks has risen less than the increase in average earnings. It is not the same as measuring increases in pay in real terms.
What matters is that the pay of all ranks, except the most junior entrant private, has risen in real terms since 1979. I accept that the most senior officers have seen the highest increases in real terms, but that mirrors the position in the economy at large and they bear great and onerous responsibilities for which they should be properly rewarded.
One of the more idiotic remarks that I have heard recently was from the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who inquired whether senior officers received share options. That shows the level of understanding and debate in the Labour party.
I might add that, in its last two reports, the Review Body on Armed Forces Pay has said that its recommendations on pay levels for brigadier and colonel equivalent fall short of broad comparability. To suggest that other ranks are losing out to subsidise the salary of most senior officers is, frankly, ridiculous.
We have always accepted the recommendations of the armed forces review body and the Government are rightly and justifiably proud of their record on armed forces pay. We aim to he fair to the service men and to the taxpayer

and to recognise that service pay must be sufficient to recruit and retain sufficient people of the very best calibre, including those at the most senior levels.
My hon. Friend has rightly pointed to the demanding range of skills that are increasingly required of our senior people. There is no doubt that restructuring and management reforms within the services have, in some cases, resulted in considerable increases in the responsibilities of many senior officers, but they have—almost without exception—risen magnificently to the tasks that they have had to undertake.
To fill posts at that senior level with people of exceptional calibre, we need in particular to retain our most able men and women. That clearly cannot be done without rewarding them appropriately and fairly. Today, the services are in regular competition with the rest of the marketplace at senior level and, indeed, at every level of expertise and training, not least because they are the best trained work force in the United Kingdom.
Inevitably and sadly, the process of restructuring in the armed forces has involved painful redundancies at all levels. In the longer run, the corporate identity of all three services will be enhanced by measures that have sought to ensure that the armed forces are able to concentrate their efforts and manpower on vital tasks, and on tasks that only they can perform.
As the House knows, that was the thrust of the "Front Line First" exercise: to maximise front-line capability by making prudent, achievable and wholly necessary economies in, for instance, headquarters, infrastructure, administration and stores. However, no one would wish to make light of the upheaval and pain that changes of that nature—and particularly the related redundancies—cause in the short term.
Let me place on record my profound admiration for the way in which both the services and their vital and essential civilian support are coping. I also pay tribute 10 the work of the resettlement organisation in the armed forces, whose record is outstanding. I propose to say more about its achievements tomorrow.
My hon. Friend mentioned compensation for senior officers who are made redundant—that subject prompted the recent question from the hon. Member for Carlisle about whether they were given share options. We have been reviewing the matter during the past 12 months—

Mr. Eric Martlew: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Soames: No, I will not.

Mr. Martlew: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that this is not a point of debate rather than a point of order. It is important to clarify that, as points of order have been abused on the Floor of the House recently. I am not suggesting that the hon. Gentleman is thinking of doing that, but it is an important point that he should bear in mind. Does he wish to proceed with his point of order? Is it a point of order for the Chair?

Mr. Martlew: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There seems to be some doubt. I invite the Minister to continue.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
As I was saying, we have been reviewing compensation during the past 12 months. It is discussed in the recent report of the Senior Salaries Review Body. There are differences in career structures, and thus in retirement policies, among the three services, reflecting differing manpower structures and requirements. In the past, severance compensation for senior Royal Navy and Army officers has been paid only when an officer, having been promoted with the expectation of serving for a particular period, has been compulsorily retired before completing a specified tour. At present, however, we do not envisage paying compensation when the inability to offer an individual further appointments does not arise from structural causes—when the individual is not truly redundant.
Although my hon. Friend did not allude to it, a great deal has been written recently about the life styles of, and so-called perks for, senior officers. I must make it clear yet again that it is not for the individual's benefit that some official residences are provided for senior commanders; it is to enable them to fulfil their crucial command duties and their responsibilities for representational entertainment.
I do not wish to prejudge the outcome of the review that Sir Peter Cazalet is currently conducting for us; Sir Peter's terms of reference ask him to examine the requirement to entertain, and the means of discharging it. In particular, they ask him to consider whether it could be discharged more effectively than through the use of official service residences and other quarters and, in the light of that, whether any properties can be disposed of. Sir Peter will also make recommendations on how entertainment should be funded and on the levels of assistance that should be provided if the concept of entertaining in officers' own homes is retained. A statement of the Government's reactions will be made as soon as we have given detailed consideration to Sir Peter's report, which is expected later this month.
In the light of the report, we may well want to change some aspects of the current arrangements in the future. The fact remains, however, that our existing arrangements are intended solely to enable senior officers to fulfil their official responsibilities, which are of great importance to the interests of the country and the dignity of the service that they represent.
I agree with those who point out that, in many instances, the burdens placed on senior officers by the representational and social aspects of their duties are considerable, and often constitute a thoroughly unwelcome intrusion into their lives and the lives of their families. As my answer of 10 February made clear, we are determined—as are the services—that provision should be limited to what is absolutely necessary for the undertaking of those duties. We are taking appropriate steps to improve the control and visibility of expenditure on residences.
We are also anxious to ensure that the assistance given to occupants of official service residences and other married quarters is provided in a cost-effective and sensible way, and is no more than is required to enable officers to carry out their representational and command duties and conduct official hospitality to the standard rightly required by the high responsibilities of their post. My right hon. and learned Friend and I look forward to receiving Sir Peter Cazalet's findings.
My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the distinguished career of Air Chief Marshal Sir Sandy Wilson, who ceases to be Air Member for Personnel at the end of April. I join my hon. Friend in acknowledging the valuable service that Sir Andrew has given his country and the Royal Air Force, and I agree with the sentiments that he expressed.
My hon. Friend also rightly remarked that we expect a great deal from our serving officers. He should be aware that the United Kingdom is unbelievably lucky to continue to have such truly remarkable people at the most senior level in all the services. By achieving high rank, they will have had to demonstrate the highest levels of reliability, self-discipline, self-reliance, loyalty, leadership, integrity, decisiveness and self-motivation, which mark them—and all other service men and women—and set them apart from any other organisation in the land. They are of a quality not to be found anywhere else, and they deserve our thanks and respect.

Forth Rail Bridge

Mr. Eric Clarke: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted that the Minister for Transport in London is to reply. I hold the Government responsible for the care and maintenance of the Forth rail bridge, and I am pleased that a United Kingdom Minister is present.
I have written to the Scottish Office, to no avail. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has been more successful, however. He received a letter, dated 2 February, from the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), the third paragraph of which states:
As agreed, officials have also sought the views of Railtrack and ScotRail. You also wished the views of the Bridgemaster to be sought. As you will appreciate, the Bridgemaster is an employee of British Rail Infrastructure Services Ltd, who are contractors to Railtrack for the day to day management of the Bridge and for carrying out the maintenance programme. It is Railtrack who determine the maintenance strategy for the Bridge and have overall responsibility for it.
I do not want the Government to hide behind any organisation, whether it be Railtrack or British Rail. I hold the Government responsible for the maintenance and safety of the bridge and its funding.
Everyone knows that the Forth bridge is an engineering wonder of the world and a tourist must for people visiting Scotland. In Scotland, we consider that it belongs to the people and not to the persons who are its caretakers. Funding must be found, but that funding should not be for an industrial museum. That is not the intention of my speech. I want the Forth bridge to be an integral part and working model of communications between Fife, Lothian and the rest of Scotland.
We hope that rail commuting and freight levels will be increased on that route and that the proposal for a second road bridge which has been mooted by the Government will be put aside. One of the problems with the second road bridge is the fact that the problem of the bottlenecks will not be solved. One will get over the water more quickly, but one will hit a bottleneck more quickly as well, especially in and around the city of Edinburgh. If the Government wish to build a bridge, they should consider the Kincardine area. The bridge there has too much traffic. The savings from dropping the proposal for the alternative bridge could go into maintaining the Forth bridge properly.
I have visited the Forth bridge as a guest both of Railtrack and of ScotRail. I have sailed below it with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe). We have examined it in detail and it is in a deplorable condition. Again because of the good offices of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, I have a letter dated 14 February from the Health and Safety Executive. It spells out in the third paragraph:
In effect the situation is that the Railway Authorities have been moving since the early 1980s from a short term cycle of repainting to a long term cycle. The short term cycle involved manual abrasion of the structure followed by 2 coats. The long term cycle is involving shotblasting which is a lengthier process requiring more robust access equipment—including scaffolding to give a firmer base for this heavy work. Five coats of paint giving a 25 year life is being applied.
That is absolutely fantastic. We saw the effect of that work. We have no criticism of that. The organisation is

tackling the trellis work, but when asked how long it would take to do the that work, it said that it would take 10 years.
In the meantime, what do we do with the bridge? Does the rest of it deteriorate? I submit as visual evidence an article in the Independent on Sunday, which was published on 23 October 1994. It contains pictures of the bridge. It shows a rusting hulk. It is a not a ship that has been tied up in Lerwick or a Bulgarian klondyker that has been ignored and that has not had funding. It is a part of the bridge. Anyone who looks at the picture can see actual rusting of the structure, and that it is in a deplorable state. That is a scandal for such a bridge.
If hon. Members think that I am exaggerating, let me tell them that I have a letter from a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling), Mr. L. Mackenzie. I shall not read the letter—it contains far too much detail for that—but I would be happy to submit it to the Minister at the end of the debate. On a fishing expedition near to and below the bridge, Mr. Mackenzie saw a girder and rivets fall off into the water. He was so worried that he put on his helmet, which he used when riding his motor cycle.
Since 1993, Mr. Mackenzie has tried to talk to the people who are in charge of the bridge. He has listed in detail all the people whom he has contacted. He reckons that, at a conservative estimate, he spent up to £200 on telephone calls. He has had the runaround. I submit that as an example of an ordinary member of the public who is worried about the state of the bridge, and who is getting nowhere because the authorities are dodging the issue.
The repair and maintenance of the bridge is too little, too late. What is being done is admirable. A first-class job is being undertaken, but a massive area needs to be covered. A structural, financial and, yes, independent inquiry into the bridge is needed, with action from the Government and funding of it.
I am aware that the Treasury has put the dead hand on many activities of the Government and of people connected with Government spending. Short-termism seems to be the policy of the Government. That will not be tolerated by the people of the United Kingdom. I re-emphasise that I hope that the Minister will not hide behind, and, in some way, hand over total responsibility to, Railtrack. If Railtrack continues with its current expenditure, the rest of the bridge will fall to bits. Why put a new engine in an old car if the old car falls to bits? It is admirable to put in something new to bring part of the bridge to a high standard, but if the rest of the bridge falls to bits, it is no use.
I give a warning that I will hold the Government solely responsible if any accident or something else happens to anyone in and around that bridge because of the lack of maintenance and care. I do not think that I am making this statement on my own. The people of Scotland, the people of the UK and many people worldwide genuinely care about the structure. I emphasise that I do not want it to be turned into an industrial museum. That structure is part and parcel of the lifeblood and communications of this country and of the region that I represent.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. With my hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke)


and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I have visited the Forth bridge. One may wonder why a west coast Member of Parliament involves himself in this situation, but, as the Minister will know, I am a member of the Select Committee on Transport and I believe that it is important to focus attention on the shortcomings of Railtrack.
For a number of years, I have been concerned about the bridge's structure. I have made four visits to it to examine it in more detail with some other people. Major implications are involved in the continuing lack of any form of maintenance. Many aspects of the structure require examination.
There are implications for the tourist trade in Scotland, given that the bridge attracts a fair proportion of the tourist trade to and around the South Queensferry area. That is important. The bridge is a landmark of some distinction. As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian suggested, it is viewed as the Scottish wonder of the world.
The state of the bridge is, obviously, of most concern. I have some experience of steel work. Having worked in a shipyard as a steel worker, and in ICI as an engineer, I have some understanding of how structures start to erode. It was clear from the visit that we made, especially during the boat trip beneath the bridge, that corrosion was at an extreme stage. There is absolutely no evidence of paint on the part of the structure nearest the River Forth. Bulging steel and warped steel plates are visible. In some areas, there is a void of any structure.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian said, the Health and Safety Executive report looks only to the short term. We want to ensure that the bridge is able to perform its function over a long period. In no circumstances would I accept that such an important issue should be left entirely to Railtrack. The current examination of the financing of the railway industry shows that ScotRail has given Railtrack £170 million. The Minister might care to ask Railtrack how that money is spent.
I, too, would back an independent inquiry. Indeed, nothing less would satisfy the Opposition—nor should anything less satisfy the Minister, if he has any understanding of the problems. I know of two reputable companies that have vast experience of painting and repairing steel work that is similar in nature to the Forth bridge. There must be other companies that could also be contacted to give evidence to any inquiry. My hon. Friends the Members for Midlothian and for Linlithgow would be the key to any inquiry.
The Minister is a fairly reasonable person. In the past, he has helped me with the affairs of the Transport Select Committee, and I am grateful to him. We need a commitment from him today that not only will he consider the matter more seriously than the Scottish Office, Railtrack and, over the years, British Rail have done, but that he will agree to set up an independent inquiry. I want my name to be added to the campaign.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) on securing this debate. Recently, there has been a great deal of publicity about the Forth bridge, much of which I believe has been exaggerated. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Cunninghame,

South (Mr. Donohoe) in his place. I value his contribution to the debate. I envy him and his hon. Friends their sailing expeditions, which sound quite delightful. Personally, I do not have the time for that sort of diversion—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] There are those who have speculated about why—[Laughter.] I repeat, the sailing trips sound as though they are the most delightful occasions.
I acknowledge the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). I am aware that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has had some interest in this matter, and he has recently asked an oral question about it.
The concern about the publicity generated about the Forth bridge has been worrying on two counts. First, it has been worrying for the great many people who are admirers of the bridge as a structure of architectural interest and believe it to be a national monument. Secondly, there are those who claim that it is being run down as part of a hidden agenda to cut train services in Scotland. I hope to be able to reassure the House that the latter proposition is certainly not the case. I hope to put minds at rest about the structure.
Sir William Arrol's bridge has been a dominant feature over the Forth estuary for 105 years. However, it is not just a Victorian bridge of historical and architectural interest, or a structure that is aesthetically pleasing. Like any river or estuary crossing, it is primarily a working transport link, currently carrying more than 200 trains a day over the estuary.
For many years, the bridge was maintained by British Rail, until Railtrack assumed responsibility for it when it was established as a Government-owned company in April 1994. Railtrack has since received some adverse publicity about an alleged lack of maintenance and safety concerns about the structure. I assure the House that those fears are unfounded. Safety concerns are taken extremely seriously by Railtrack. The Forth bridge has been assessed by a wide range of engineering experts, including the independent Health and Safety Executive, all of whom declared themselves satisfied with the structural integrity of the bridge.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: There have been two letters from Mr. John Rimington. Who were the advisers to the Health and Safety Executive? Did they have qualifications in marine environment engineering, or were their qualifications limited to the normal work of Railtrack at Derby?

Mr. Norris: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question now, but I shall endeavour to do so in due course. I know him well and I have great respect for his experience and for his approach to these problems. I do not believe that either he or I would wish to question the integrity of the Health and Safety Executive. I am sure that that is not in question on either side of the House. Indeed, if I wished to strike a slightly discordant note, I would say that there have been many occasions when evidence from the HSE has been quoted by the Opposition against Ministers, precisely on the basis that such advice was independent and therefore could be relied on.
On the question whether the HSE was suitably qualified to carry out the work, I shall endeavour to find an answer to that, but I would be very surprised were there to be any foundation to an allegation that the HSE was not competent.
I want to reiterate that the Forth bridge was assessed by a wide range of engineering experts, including the HSE—which is an independent body—all of whom declared themselves satisfied with the structural integrity of the bridge.

Mr. Donohoe: rose—

Mr. Norris: I shall give way, but I am trying to answer the debate.

Mr. Donohoe: I require only a yes or no answer. Will the Minister give my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) a copy of the report?

Mr. Norris: I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of the HSE. It is the HSE's report and, if it so wishes, I would be content for the report to be released. However, the Opposition are straying into unusual territory in questioning the integrity of the HSE. They have frequently used that body as a stick with which to beat the Government. I have no complaints about that in general. However, I do not believe that a case is very strong if it relies on a criticism or implied criticism of the work of the HSE. Therefore, I do not believe that the recent call for yet another independent engineers inquiry is valid.
Railtrack, using HSE-approved access arrangements, regularly inspects the more remote areas of the bridge more thoroughly than ever before. It is able to ensure, therefore, that attention can be concentrated on the areas of highest priority. I know that many people view the Forth bridge as a monument of national importance. The hon. Member for Midlothian rightly said that that was not the way in which he regarded it, and I am grateful to him for saying so, because that is a sensible position to adopt.
However, it is important to recognise that Railtrack's object is to maintain the structure as a working railway bridge, a vital transport artery, and it does not claim—nor indeed does it have a remit—to maintain the bridge as a gleaming national monument or a tourist attraction. Its priority is to maintain the bridge as economically as possible without compromising safety.
Railtrack's present maintenance and painting programme, approved by the Health and Safety Executive, is fully—I emphasise, fully—adequate to protect the structural integrity of the bridge. Railtrack is identifying and prioritising the painting of those areas that are of structural importance, rather than adopting a "quick fix" solution to appease critics which would be only temporary and not in the bridge's long-term interest.
Railtrack's maintenance programme is currently contracted to British Rail Infrastructure Services, which relies on expert metallurgical advice from British Rail Scientific Services in Derby. In the light of that advice, the old painting processes, which involved wire brush cleaning of the metal followed by two coats of paint, have been changed to a more modern technique, which involves shot-blasting the metal and applying five coats of paint.
Although it is true that shot-blasting can be used only on a small area of the bridge at a time, the results of that technique together with the new painting method are expected to last between 20 and 25 years, rather than the four to five years' life expectancy of the old method. What is more, the painters, who are meeting Health and Safety Executive requirements in their painting activity, can now gain access to the more inaccessible parts of the bridge, so generally improving the overall maintenance standards.
I tell the House, with some sense of personal disappointment, that the popular opinion that British Rail used continuous end-to-end painting methods on the Forth bridge is, sadly, a myth. Key areas of the bridge have always been prioritised for painting, while other non-essential areas have often been left for many years.
The House will also recognise that safety standards are becoming continuously more stringent, and in the past 20 years far more demanding standards have been applied by the Health and Safety Executive—on, for example, specialist scaffolding—than previously. Painting methods have been altered accordingly. We no longer allow the painters to dangle from rope above the structure as they carry out their painting work.
I can assure the House, importantly, that the metalwork of the bridge is, contrary to current scaremongering, in good condition. I will ensure that any allegations made by the hon. Member for Midlothian, or by constituents of his to whom he referred in his speech, are fully investigated, and I shall let him know the results of that investigation.
The metal is not, as some have claimed, devoid of all protective coatings in some parts of the bridge. The elements of tubular sections which appear to be most affected by flaking paint are covered by an undercoat of carboniferous material and black iron oxide, which continues to protect the metal. Surface corrosion on those elements has little significant impact on the structural integrity of the bridge.
Railtrack is concentrating on cleaning and repainting eight lattice tie-members. Those parts of the structure are very important to the integrity of the bridge, but it is difficult for one to see from a distance that they have been repainted. This year, Railtrack will also turn its attention to some of the central cantilever sections of the bridge.
British Rail Infrastructure Services also carries out routine maintenance. It removes the debris—dead birds, litter and so on—from the crevices of the bridge. In spite of recent criticism, there has been no change in that procedure under Railtrack's management.
I know that there has been some—

Mr. Eric Clarke: I am not questioning whether the maintenance is going on; I am questioning the lack of maintenance in other parts of the bridge. The maintenance that is taking place is first-class, but it is insufficient. An admission was made about timing, and I have witnesses—my hon. Friends who were with us when the question was asked. That is the question that I want the Minister to concentrate on—how long will it last?

Mr. Norris: I say to the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect, that I fear that the conclusion that he has drawn is not the conclusion drawn by the Health and Safety Executive in respect of the structure or the conclusion drawn by Railtrack. Railtrack has never disguised the fact that it does not see itself as having a remit to produce a gleaming national monument. I agree, as does Railtrack, that one could, in essence, spend many more millions of pounds on improving the appearance of the structure, but Railtrack has maintained throughout that its real responsibility is to maintain a vital transport artery.

Mr. Brian Wilson: rose—

Mr. Norris: If I am to give way to the hon. Gentleman, I hope that it will take only a second.

Mr. Wilson: If Railtrack is not responsible for maintaining parts of the railway infrastructure that are also national monuments, who is?

Mr. Norris: The hon. Gentleman knows that the structure is a working structure and part of the railway system. Railtrack maintains it in accordance with its responsibility to ensure the safe operation of the railways. If there are proposals to add to the work that is being done, and which the hon. Member for Midlothian says is excellent work, I have no doubt that my hon. Friends in the Scottish Office would be perfectly happy to discuss such arrangements, but I am saying that the structure must be retained as a safe structure.
Apart from the habitual maintenance functions that I have mentioned, which mean that Railtrack incurs regular maintenance costs—incidentally, spending no less on maintenance than was spent on it per annum by British Rail—a £4 million programme to replace the weighbeams and to renew the rails has been carried out. It was completed in July 1994 and it has meant that the speed of a train crossing the bridge is now 50 mph rather than the 20 mph restriction imposed in the early 1990s because of worn and splitting tracks. No one, as far as I am aware, denies that that is a vast improvement. It emphasises and demonstrates Railtrack's commitment to the bridge's future.
In spite of all that I have said about maintenance and safety aspects of the Forth bridge, and in answer specifically to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), may I say that Railtrack willingly accepts that, from a cosmetic point of view, the bridge could look better. Railtrack has, as I said, explained that it would cost tens of millions of pounds to paint it to the high cosmetic standards that some critics demand. I repeat that Railtrack is not in the business of maintaining a tourist attraction. Even if there were limitless funds, there is a physical limit to the area of the bridge that could be painted at any one time using current painting methods and complying with the Health and Safety Executive's important requirements.
I appreciate that many people, including many hon. Members, regard the bridge as a national monument, and no one denies that it is a great feat of Victorian engineering, but it is not in any sense threatened. I have

no reason, and I do not believe that there is any good reason, to doubt Railtrack's evidence that the bridge is structurally sound.

Mr. Dalyell: When did the Health and Safety Executive last conduct its in-depth technical consideration of the problem? In what year did the Health and Safety Executive do that? I understand from Mr. Rimington's letter that it was 1989.

Mr. Norris: I shall advise the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can on whether there is a later date. It would be necessary to ascertain precisely what inspections had taken place, and I would not want to mislead the House or the hon. Gentleman. I understand his argument.
However, I emphasise the facts that I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House need to know. Although many millions of pounds could be spent on cosmetic improvements to the bridge, the independent Health and Safety Executive has no doubt that the structure is sound, that it has been maintained at the same cost at which it was previously maintained by British Rail, that there are no structural defects, that reports of flakings or large pieces falling off are—as far as we are aware—as yet unsubstantiated, and that the bridge remains a vital part of our transport network and in an absolutely safe condition for that purpose. I do not believe that it is reasonable to expect Railtrack to paint the bridge simply for cosmetic purposes. It goes beyond its remit and resources.
I hope that what I have said has reassured the House that the bridge is being maintained and that it is a safe operational structure. I have no reason to doubt Railtrack's assurances that all the necessary steps are being taken to maintain the bridge in a sound condition. Railtrack has made clear its commitment to the Forth bridge and I am happy that we can look forward to another century of trains crossing it.

Mr. Dalyell: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke), the constituency Member of Parliament for the area, I am dismayed at the Minister's answer. We are talking about the greatest engineering structure of the 19th century. Baedeker of 1906 gave half a page to Salisbury cathedral and two pages to the Forth bridge. It is a great monument and it is not being treated as such. All this business of cosmetic—

It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, pursuant to Order [19 December].

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Timber

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to ensure that the Forestry Commission grows timber suitable for the United Kingdom furniture industry; and what is his policy on import substitution for timber products.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Sir Hector Monro): The Forestry Commission grows timber for a wide range of markets, including the furniture industry. The Government are committed to expanding the woodland area in Britain, thereby reducing our dependence on timber imports.

Mr. Field: I thank my hon. Friend. Does he agree that it takes hours of careful craftsmanship to create a beautiful piece of furniture and just moments of vandalism to smash it to pieces? Is there not an analogy here with the centuries of statesmanship that have created the United Kingdom and the vandals on the Opposition Benches who want to destroy it with the hammer of devolution?

Sir Hector Monro: That is an original thought. The trees of the United Kingdom are a fine asset and I am glad that our hardwoods are manufactured into the finest furniture in the world. Quality has always been the watchword of the United Kingdom. It would be a crime to destroy it by going down the route towards independence.

Mr. Dunnachie: Does the Minister agree that the best place to plant trees would be in the Pollok estate in my constituency where hundred of trees have been vandalised and destroyed to make way for a road that endangers the health and lives of the people of my constituency? It has destroyed one of the greatest beauty spots in the south side. Does the Minister agree that work on that obnoxious road should stop and that the Eaglestone bypass should be considered?

Sir Hector Monro: That is rather far removed from furniture. I understand that the road is supported by a Labour council and by Labour Members of Parliament. When the route is completed, I hope that there will be excellent landscaping and that a large number of trees will be planted to replace those that have been felled.

Mr. Maclennan: Is not the Minister concerned at the poor take-up of grants for broadleaf trees and the relatively disappointing results of the Government's change of policy towards the support of those who wish to grow hardwood?

Sir Hector Monro: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Of the 34,000 hectares planted in the United Kingdom last year, 16,000 hectares were hardwood. That is a big improvement on anything that has happened recently. I believe that our increased grants for hardwood are working and I hope that that will continue in the future.

Mr. John D. Taylor: In view of the revised and improved grants for tree planting in Scotland over the past few years, can the Minister confirm that there has been an increase in tree planting in Scotland?

Sir Hector Monro: About 1 million hectares are owned by the Forestry Commission and a substantial number of hectares by private forestry owners. The level is about the same, but as our timber is maturing, more felling is taking place. All felling licences are matched to replanting licences.

Fishing

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next expects to meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry to discuss policy on drift net fishing for salmon and other migratory fish.

Sir Hector Monro: As my hon. Friend knows, there is no drift netting for salmon in Scottish waters. However, I am in touch with angling interests and will be discussing the subject of the north-east drift net fishery for salmon with representatives of the Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards shortly.

Mr. Bellingham: Is the Minister aware that all civilised countries, apart from England and Ireland, have banned drift net fishing for salmon? Is he also aware that a drift net-caught salmon is worth whatever Billingsgate will pay for it, whereas a rod-caught salmon is worth hundreds of pounds to the Scottish economy? In light of that, is it not sheer folly to allow the north-east drift net fishery to continue? Should it not be bought out immediately with proper compensation?

Sir Hector Monro: I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong view, which I share in regard to the economy of Scotland. There is no doubt at all that the tourist industry—our hotels and so on—in the areas through which the salmon rivers run is seriously affected by the drop in the number of salmon coming into the rivers because of the north-east drift net fishery, but we have to proceed on scientific grounds. We are having further consultations and it is at least welcome that between 1992 and 1994 the number of licences in the north-east drift net fishery fell by 19 per cent.

Dr. Reid: Does the Minister have any plans to change the antiquated laws prohibiting the domestic production of salmon roe in Scotland? Is it not ridiculous that we can sell and consume imported salmon roe but we are prohibited in Scotland from producing our own? Would it not be a lively source of jobs for many people in Scotland?

Sir Hector Monro: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I would not want to over-estimate the number of jobs that may be involved. We are having urgent consultations to try to resolve the matter, but it is not quite as simple as it looks.

Community Care

Mr. Graham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairmen and chief executives of NHS trusts to discuss matters relating to care in the community.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): My noble and learned Friend the Minister of State met the


chairmen of national health service trusts on 20 January to discuss a range of issues including care in the community. The chief executive of the NHS in Scotland held one of his periodic meetings with chief executives of NHS trusts yesterday.

Mr. Graham: The Secretary of State will be aware of the proposals to close Ravenscraig, Dykebar, Merchiston and Bridge of Weir hospitals in my constituency and the constituencies of other hon. Members. He will also be aware of the concern felt by many of the parents and relatives of patients in those hospitals. They are very worried. Therefore, will the Secretary of State support vigorously the Carers (Recognition and Service) Bill which will have its Second Reading on 3 March? Will he guarantee that Ministers will back it completely to ensure that thousands of hard-pressed carers receive the service and support from the Government that they need and rightly deserve?

Mr. Lang: I shall certainly study the terms of the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The Government's policy of care in the community has been widely welcomed as being a considerable advance in that area. The possible closures to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and any such proposal, would be subject to widespread consultation and any proposed closure of a hospital would come to me. I would ensure that all proposals were given the most careful scrutiny possible, taking account not only of any planned closures, but any planned extensions and developments.

Mr. Gallie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that devolving the responsibility of funding for the care of the elderly in residential and nursing homes to local authorities has discriminated against private nursing and residential homes?

Mr. Lang: I hope that that is not so. If my hon. Friend has any examples that he can bring to my attention, I shall certainly ensure that they are examined. What matters is providing the best possible care for the individuals concerned at the most cost-effective price to taxpayers, who are, after all, funding the programme to the extent of many millions of pounds. It is important that all agencies involved—local authorities, health boards, the private sector, the voluntary sector, Scottish Homes and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities—work together on an inter-agency basis, and we have given them guidance to that effect.

Mrs. Ewing: Given the importance attached to the link between social services and health services in guaranteeing the delivery of care in the community, does the Secretary of State accept that there must be confidence among members of the community in those who are charged with ensuring the delivery of the service? What action is being taken by the Scottish Office with respect to Moray health services trust board and the as yet unexplained resignation of the chief executive and two non-executive directors?

Mr. Lang: That is essentially a matter for the board, but if the hon. Lady has any anxieties that she would like to bring to the attention of myself or my noble Friend the

Minister for Health, we shall look into them. To answer her general question—yes, I have confidence in the way in which the general policy is being delivered.

Mr. George Robertson: On the subject of health and care in the community, is the Secretary of State aware that the Government propose that, under the framework document on Northern Ireland published this morning, those subjects will be the responsibility of a legislative Assembly in Northern Ireland? Are not the Government revealing the stark contrast and double standards in their position when they offer a legislative Assembly to Northern Ireland but, despite its special features, they offer nothing to Scotland? Now that the Government have conceded the key principle that devolution inside the United Kingdom is perfectly compatible with a reformed constitution how can they, with any credibility, continue to attack Labour's plans for a devolved legislature for Scotland?

Mr. Lang: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be so keen to fall so far below the level of events. If the hon. Gentleman cannot understand the differences between the circumstances in Scotland and Northern Ireland—with its history and traditions, and the great issues at stake in the Prime Minister's initiative announced today—he has much homework still to do.

Unemployment, Highlands

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the prospects of unemployment falling in the highlands in 1995–96.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): The Scottish Office does not produce unemployment forecasts for either Scotland as a whole or for parts of Scotland. However, independent forecasters have predicted further falls in Scottish unemployment in 1995–1996 and I trust that the highlands will also follow that trend.

Mr. Macdonald: Two weeks ago, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) gave a clear undertaking on behalf of the Government that there would be a full, formal consultation, as required under the Railways Act 1993, before the closure of any rail or Motorail services affecting Fort William, and on the implications of that for employment in the highlands. Will the Minister confirm the Government's commitment to formal consultation? What discussions has he had with his colleagues in the Department of Transport to get the consultations under way?

Mr. Kynoch: I recognise the importance of transport links with the Western Isles. Future services to that part of Scotland depend on providing services geared towards the customer. The proper way forward is to ensure privatisation as quickly as possible to achieve improved services and improved usage and, therefore, better links with the area. To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, the franchising director is required, under guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Transport—under the Railways Act 1993—to consult formally the rail users consultative committees and local authorities on the pattern and quality of services to be provided through franchising. Consultations on the ScotRail franchise, of


which the passenger service requirement is a key component, will start after the PSR is published—probably in May.

Mr. Stewart: Will my hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is being given a warm welcome.

Mr. Stewart: I am grateful, Madam Speaker. Can my hon. Friend confirm to the House that unemployment in the highlands has been, and is, falling because of the strength of the Scottish economy, of which the highlands are an integral part? More specifically, is the answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) yes or no?

Mr. Kynoch: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and shall take the first part first. He is right: unemployment in the highlands and islands area has been falling—it has fallen in seven out of the previous 12 months. On the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, I suggest that he waits for a later question to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give a full answer.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Given that the unemployment figures in my constituency, particularly in the Kintyre area, are certainly not falling, how does the Minister think that the objective 1 funding will help unemployment figures? He should remember that, out of more than 214 projects, Argyle and Bute received only 20 in the past. In view of the recent criticism of the piecemeal approach to objective 1 funding, can the Minister say what the overall strategic development policy is for the whole of the highlands and islands?

Mr. Kynoch: In 1994, a total of 58 projects for the highlands and islands were approved for support from the European regional development fund under the objective I programme. The hon. Lady will be aware that there is also a geographical targeting programme, but that comes secondary in the selection procedure.
The first procedure is very clear: every application is assessed against a set of common criteria, with a view to selecting the best projects, whatever their location. There is then a secondary procedure whereby geographical targeting is taken into account. I am sure that, if the hon. Lady were to encourage her local enterprise companies to support projects which are worth-while, money would be forthcoming.

Mr. George Robertson: The House will notice how the new Minister dodges and weaves around a straight question which was also asked by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). The fact is that unemployment in the highlands will be affected dramatically if railway privatisation leads, as it will, to a reduction in services throughout that area.
A Minister of the Crown gave a categorical assurance in the Scottish Grand Committee that there would be formal consultation on the issue of the Motorail and sleeper services to the north of Scotland. The Minister must not pass the buck to another Minister or to his boss. He must answer the question: will there be formal consultation before the services are withdrawn—yes or no?

Mr. Kynoch: I have already answered that question in relation to the passenger service requirement's formal consultation. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr.

Robertson) and I differ significantly in our views about the benefits of privatisation. I believe that British Rail must improve its service, and the only way to do that is by introducing private enterprise into the network. By attracting more people who will use the railways the service will improve, costs will come down and the number of services will increase.

Mr. Wallace: As the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) gave an assurance to me, will the Minister accept that an answer which refers to the passenger service requirement obligation is not relevant because it depends on the existing timetable when the passenger service requirement is brought forward? We are concerned that the services should be in place when the consultation period starts. I do not want the Minister to put up any blinds with references to passenger service requirements. Will the Minister give a clear answer—yes or no? Will there be formal consultation before the services are withdrawn?

Mr. Kynoch: I believe that I have answered the question very fully with regard to the statement by my hon. Friend last week.

Housing

Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of Scottish Homes to discuss housing in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: I meet the board of Scottish Homes from time to time to discuss a range of issues, the last occasion being on 7 November 1994. I have no immediate plans for a further meeting.

Mr. McMaster: Does the Secretary of State recall that, when Scottish Homes was founded as Scotland's national housing agency, he told the House that it would be founded on the twin principles of efficiency and tenant choice? Is it efficient for Scottish Homes to empty a 56-flat multi-storey building in my constituency— Waverley court—for a redevelopment which we are still awaiting six years later? Is it democracy or tenant choice to offer tenants, like it or lump it, take it or leave it, no choice of landlord? Is it not time that the Secretary of State told Sir James Mellon, the chairman of Scottish Homes, to start concentrating on problems like that, instead of using Scottish Homes as a machine for party political propaganda?

Mr. Lang: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should make those comments about Scottish Homes. According to a letter that I have seen, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) said that much of what Scottish Homes had achieved was "commendable" and that Scottish Homes had been a "breath of fresh air" for housing in Scotland.
I believe that Scottish Homes has created an enormous number of achievements in Scotland. So far as individual cases are concerned, if the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers has been running for as long as the hon. Gentleman suggests, I am surprised that he has not been in touch with the Government or with Scottish Homes to clarify it earlier.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my constituency, Scottish Homes has acted as a catalyst in bringing the private and public sectors


together in the Aberdeen city centre partnership to transform and rejuvenate the centre of Aberdeen by an imaginative policy of building new homes and refurbishing old properties? Is he also aware that that policy is encouraging up to 2,000 people to come back to live in the centre of the great city of Aberdeen? Does he agree that that is more typical of the excellent work being done up and down the country by Scottish Homes?

Mr. Lang: Indeed I do. I gather that some £6.5 million has been invested in that project, and it is a good example of the kind of partnership which Scottish Homes makes the keynote of its activities. The project involves Grampian regional council, Aberdeen district council and the local enterprise company. That is exactly the kind of catalytic partnership which can do so much to improve Scottish housing.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: We all know what a good job Scottish Homes does, and that is why we do not want to see it broken up by hatchet men such as Mr. Mackinlay. Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that, if tenants in my constituency and others vote to stay with Scottish Homes, they will be entitled to the same high standards from that landlord?

Mr. Lang: I am certain that Scottish Homes would never distinguish between different categories of tenants in terms of the service it offered them.

Mr. McLoughlin: When my right hon. Friend next meets representatives of Scottish Homes, could he ask for an updated report on the right to buy in Scotland? Will he inform the House about the success of that policy in giving tenants the right to buy their own homes?

Mr. Lang: The right to buy has been enormously successful, and Scottish Homes has been at the forefront of disposing houses to sitting tenants as well. We have sold some 300,000 council houses in Scotland since the policy began. The policy had to be fought through in the teeth of fierce opposition from the Opposition. Thus, 300,000 tenants and their families have had the kind of housing that they wanted.

Mr. David Marshall: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a shortage of special needs housing in Scotland, especially in the city of Glasgow? If he does agree, will he make adequate resources available to Scottish Homes to ensure that there is a substantial increase in the number of special needs houses available? If not, why not?

Mr. Lang: Scottish Homes makes a feature of meeting special needs in its housing programme, and it has embarked upon a programme of providing 2,000 community care and other special needs houses.

Water Authorities (Chairmen)

Mr. Welsh: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the chairmen of the new water authorities to discuss their salary levels.

Mr. Lang: I shall meet the chairmen of the new water authorities as appropriate to discuss matters of mutual interest.

Mr. Welsh: Why is the Secretary of State defying economics and democracy by paying £40,000 a year to

water board chairmen for a two-day week, when the services are being run by unpaid, democratically elected local authority conveners who offer a high-quality, low-cost service, which is what people want? How can the right hon. Gentleman justify his extravagance upon those part-time water rustlers when the Government are offering a few pennies more to qualified nurses for a full week's work?

Mr. Lang: I have no doubt that the skills and business experience gained from their involvement in other public bodies which the new chairmen will bring to their posts will stand in good stead the services which are delivered to people in their respective areas.
As to the economics of the matter, the combined salaries of the present directors of water and sewerage add up to £770,000. The combined salaries of the new chief executives and chairmen add up to only £344,000. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman needs a lesson in economics.

Mr. Donohoe: When the Secretary of State meets the chairmen, will he discuss with them why questions addressed by hon. Members to the right hon. Gentleman have been dealt with by those quango chairmen? When one writes to the quango chairmen, one discovers that they do not reply for months. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about that intolerable situation?

Mr. Lang: It is entirely standard for questions of fact, administration and procedure to be dealt with by the chairmen and chief executives of non-departmental public bodies, and for their answers to be deposited in the Library. As far as policy matters are concerned, those are for Ministers to deal with. I am not aware of any delay of the kind referred to by the hon. Gentleman, but if he would like to draw to my attention to such a delay I shall follow it up.

Mr. Allason: In view of the relatively insignificant cost of salaries in the overall budgets of the water authorities, will my right hon. Friend tell the House what representations he has made to the European Commission, bearing in mind that most of the additional costs imposed on water companies come from the European drinking water and clean bathing water directives?

Mr. Lang: These are indeed directives that impose substantial burdens on water and sewerage services in Scotland, as they do elsewhere. It is, however, the Government's desire to ensure that water and sewerage standards in this country are of the very highest; and it will be the purpose of the new public authorities to achieve that.

Mr. McAllion: With bungs on transfer deals dominating the headlines this morning, will the right hon. Gentleman try to justify the £100,000 bung that he is paying as part of the transfer of water and sewerage services away from elected local councils? How does he justify paying £40,000 a year to unelected part-time placemen, when those whom they will supplant, the elected conveners of water services committees, currently get £900 a year in councillors' allowances? What is the public interest argument that justifies ditching the people's choice to run water and sewerage while the right hon. Gentleman lines the pockets of the people he chooses?
Is it not true that only paid hirelings will do the dirty work that the Minister wants them to do: putting up prices and paving the way for water privatisation? The right hon. Gentleman should remember that there are some things that money cannot buy—among them, the votes of the Scottish people who, at the next election, will sweep him, his water quangos and his chairmen into the dustbin of history where they all belong.

Mr. Lang: The payment levels offered to these chairmen are entirely comparable with those of other public sector body chairmen. The appointment of these chairmen is entirely compatible with the procedures adopted by the last Labour Government.
As for the benefits to the public: the benefits come from the most cost-effective and efficient delivery of water and sewerage services in Scotland. I am sure that that will result.

Forth Rail Bridge

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had from the department of offshore engineering at the Heriot Watt university on the condition of the Forth rail bridge.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): No representations from the department of offshore engineering about the condition of the Forth rail bridge have been received.

Mr. Dalyell: Can the Minister help the House by dealing with two questions of fact which somehow eluded the Under-Secretary of State for Transport? In what year did the Health and Safety Executive last conduct an in-depth investigation into the bridge? And what are the qualifications in offshore engineering or the marine environment of those who are giving the advice that all is well with the Forth rail bridge?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that W. A. Fairhurst, consulting engineers, carried out a review of the painting strategy for ScotRail in 1992 and endorsed ScotRail's method of painting. The company has recently confirmed that Railtrack's strategy is satisfactory.
I cannot state the qualifications of all the engineers concerned off hand, but I have no doubt that Railtrack will have been relying on expert evidence. As the hon. Gentleman heard in the Adjournment debate, the Health and Safety Executive has said that it is satisfied with Railtrack's maintenance programme for the bridge, and that the structural integrity of the bridge is not at risk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) said that he would make inquiries about the most recent investigation and would contact the hon. Gentleman. The crux of the matter is that the elements of the tubular sections which appear to be most affected by flaking paint are still covered by an undercoat of carboniferous material and black iron oxide which is protecting the structure. It is not at risk, contrary to the scaremongering by some Opposition Members.

Local Government Finance

Mr. Chisholm: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what criteria he took into account when setting the capping limit for Lothian region for the financial year 1995–96.

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend's provisional capping principles for all regional and islands councils take into account the overall level of the 1995–96 local government finance settlement; the additional provision which is being made for the police service; and the categories of expenditure which will be disregarded for capping purposes.

Mr. Chisholm: Why are the Government cutting their contribution to Lothian's budget and setting the cap only £4 million above the present one, when £9 million is required to cover inflation and an additional £17 million is needed to meet agreed pay awards? Does the Minister realise that many teaching posts in Lothian will have to go at a time when school rolls there are set to increase by 2,500 in August, and when the pupil:teacher ratio is already the highest in Scotland? Why is the Minister sacrificing the children of Lothian to the Government's economic incompetence and to the intended tax breaks of next year?

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that he accepts that the capping regime for next year is very tight. But it is clearly not unrealistic when one takes into account the level of inflation and for as long as local authorities fund pay increases from efficiency savings—as the rest of the public sector has had to do.
It is wrong to calculate that a specific number of extra teachers will necessarily be required simply because of a rise in pupil rolls. Obviously the impact will vary considerably from school to school. I suggest that local councils thoroughly examine their budgets before they assume that services will have to be cut. Greater efficiency is always possible.

Mrs. Fyfe: What answer does the Minister have to the Forum on Scottish Education, which warned this week that Scotland's education service is facing its most severe cuts for more than a decade? Yesterday, the Prime Minister advised education authorities to look for efficiencies to fund pay deals. Is the Minister aware that the Rev. John Taylor, chairman of the Forum on Scottish Education, has said that there is no conceivable efficiency that could meet the extra costs and that, therefore, class sizes would increase, support services would diminish and community, outdoor and pre-five education would be cut drastically or even abolished? It is disappointing to hear the Minister regurgitate the Prime Minister's platitudes, dodging and weaving on a major issue. Will he answer parents' worries about their children's education?

Mr. Kynoch: I am amazed by the hon. Lady's reluctance to accept that improvements can be made in any form of local government expenditure. The teachers' settlement was negotiated by the Scottish joint negotiating committee, and many district regional authorities took part. I assume that negotiators on the management side took full account of the likely budgetary provision when agreeing the pay deal. It is now up to them to deliver within that pay deal.

Rail Sleeper Services

Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his Department's policy towards the maintenance of overnight rail sleeper services between London and the principal Scottish cities; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lang: The Scottish Office welcomes the Franchising Director's intention to safeguard the four most heavily used Anglo-Scottish sleeper services by including them in the passenger service requirement for the future ScotRail franchise.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my right hon. Friend aware that people who indulge in field sports, in which Scotland is supreme—grouse shooting, salmon fishing and stalking—need to arrive at their destination well and truly refreshed? Would it not be a great loss to Scotland if these sleeper services were denied to such people? Would there not also be a loss to Scotland? Does my right hon. Friend agree that our balance of payments would suffer, as would all business men who use these vital services? Should not British Rail be able to run these services more profitably without needing a £400 subsidy on the Fort William service from the taxpayer?

Mr. Lang: I am sure that all those concerned will have heard what my hon. Friend has said. The subsidy is £180 per passenger on the Fort William sleeper service and £453 per passenger trip when account is taken of access charges to the track. It is clear that these are substantial figures. I am as concerned as anyone that the services remain as extensive as possible. Following privatisation, I have no doubt that they will expand and succeed, as all other privatisations have succeeded. I am sure that those responsible for taking decisions will have heard my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that the week before his recent meeting with Sir Bob Reid I tried to make a forward booking on a Motorail service from Aberdeen. I was told that the services were cancelled and were being withdrawn. What credence can we give to the right hon. Gentleman's assurances about future services when British Rail treats him and his Ministers with such contempt? Does that not mean that we are facing a serious problem in respect of north-south rail services once franchising gets under way?

Mr. Lang: I do not believe that we are. The circumstances of the Carlisle and Fort William sleeper and the Motorail services to which the hon. Gentleman referred are those where there is an indication of a diminution of service. That is clearly to the detriment of those who have relied upon them. All closures consequent upon the passenger service requirement would be subject to formal consultation under the Railways Act 1993. That has already been made plain.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: On his last point, does the Secretary of State not understand that what was promised and confirmed in Hansard, thanks to the efforts of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), and in the Scottish Office's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace)—full and formal consultation under the terms of the Act—is not the same as the consultation that the Minister was hiding behind today and which the Secretary of State for

Transport has just written to me to confirm, which is that consultation will follow the issuing of passenger service requirements? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm what he promised to the Scottish Grand Committee—that consultation will be under the terms of the Act, not based on services that have already been axed?

Mr. Lang: Formal consultation under the 1993 Act follows the PSR publication. Consultation is required with local authorities and with the rail users consultative committee. That is the consultation to which my hon. Friend referred in the Grand Committee debate.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us who are used to hearing weasel-worded performances from him believe that, even by those standards, today's performance was a disgrace? Does he accept that, by his actions, he is shaming and making his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who gave an assurance in good faith, look a fool? That assurance was omitted from the official record and was reinstated at the request of some of us. There is no doubt about what the hon. Member for Dumfries said or meant, and that has been confirmed by the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). That is the opinion and the knowledge of every right-thinking, decent person who heard it. Is the Secretary of State now repudiating the hon. Member for Dumfries? If he is, let all shame be upon him from this House. It is a disgusting performance.

Mr. Lang: Far from repudiating my hon. Friend, I am confirming what he said. As to the entry in Hansard, my officials sought to ensure that what my hon. Friend said was entered on the record of the debate. The hon. Gentleman will have had a letter from the Chairman of the Committee, explaining why the Hansard officials had failed initially to include the relevant words.

Mr. Salmond: The House believes that, having failed to rewrite the record, the Secretary of State is now engaged in a process of rewriting history. Why cannot we have a straight answer to the question: will the services still be available when the formal consultation exercise starts—yes or no?

Mr. Lang: That is a different question and is a matter for British Rail and ScotRail. If the services are not available—if British Rail were to contemplate their removal—it, too, would engage in consultation with the rail users consultative committee. If closure had taken place, the assets would still be in place and, in response to subsequent PSR consultations, could, if necessary, be reinstated.

Mr. McFall: Is the Secretary of State aware of the inauspicious comments of the director of ScotRail, Mr. John Ellis, who, two short months ago, as production director, said that Railtrack could not take into account social issues? He could not see much being done to equip branch lines. Does the Secretary of State not realise that those comments mean a debilitating future for economic development, tourism and community life in the highlands? Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear whether services will he shut before there is consultation? Labour Members are asking for a one-word answer with either two letters or three: yes or no?

Mr. Lang: I have already answered the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question. On the first part, I had a


meeting with the chairman of Railtrack last week and am confident that he is extremely positive and ambitious to maintain and, indeed, expand services in Scotland.

Scottish Economy

Mr. McKelvey: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss the Scottish economy.

Mr. Galloway: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will urgently meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss recent manufacturing job losses in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress from time to time to discuss a range of matters concerning the Scottish economy.

Mr. McKelvey: When the Secretary of States gets the opportunity to discuss with the STUC the economy of Scotland and the important part that the economy of Ayrshire can play, will he explain to it that, for 25 years, the people of Ayrshire have been desperate for a road that can lead them down to the south but have been landlocked? When he meets the STUC, will he be able to say that the M77 is either completed or that it is near completion and that the A77 will be upgraded to meet the M77, to release the people of Ayrshire so that they may travel south?

Mr. Kynoch: We are very well aware of the strong feelings of hon. Members from Ayrshire about road links. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the roads will proceed, and on schedule. I certainly hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to report positively in answer to the question.

Mr. Galloway: Will the Minister test on the STUC the absurd equation often canvassed by the Government in the House between the proliferation in Scotland of temporary, low-paid, short-term and often contract jobs assembling other people's manufactures or forklifting other people's goods around empty warehouses, and the jobs that have been lost designing aircraft, building ships, mining coal and making steel—real manufacturing jobs that have been lost to Scotland during these dismal, bitter Tory years?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman lives in a rather unreal world. He must accept that conditions change from day to day and that businesses in Scotland have to adapt to those changing circumstances, but that what is important is that the Government put in place the right economic factors to guarantee that business can thrive. I would argue strongly that the Government have achieved just that and that with unemployment steadily falling that is being proved time and again. The worry of business in Scotland today is that the tax rises and cost increases that are likely to come from the Opposition's proposal for a devolved, tax-raising Scottish Parliament will drive business away from Scotland and not be in the best interests of the Scottish economy.

Mr. Gallie: Bearing in mind the massive investment of the Government and Strathclyde in the M77, is my hon. Friend aware of the disruption being caused to the work there by protesters? Will he do what he can to protect that

investment by ensuring that the new law on aggravated trespass, which he and I supported last year, is in force to ensure that the road goes ahead?

Mr. Kynoch: Of course I am aware of the instances referred to by my hon. Friend, but it is a matter for the police authorities. I can assure my hon. Friend that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for roads will keep a careful eye on progress.

Mr. Stewart: When my hon. Friend meets the STUC, will he re-emphasise the importance of business rates to jobs in Scotland? Will he seek the valuable assistance of the STUC in attempting to clarify what on earth is the Labour party's policy on that?

Mr. Kynoch: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) seeking clarification of the Labour party's policy. If it wishes to return business rates to the control of local government, I would argue strongly that that bodes badly for Scottish business. Under the Government, business rates have been brought down from 76p to 43p, which is good news for Scottish business.

Mr. Davidson: Does the Minister accept that the state of the Scottish economy will be one of the issues under discussion in the forthcoming by-election in Scotland? Does he further accept that the anticipated defeat of the Conservative party by the Scottish National party by a majority of at least 10,000 to 15,000 reflects the view that the Scottish people seek to serve upon the Government that enough is enough and that Scots will unite behind any party which wishes and is able to defeat the Government?

Mr. Kynoch: I am confident that the economy will play a significant part in any forthcoming by-election. I am equally confident that the Government's argument is sound. The policies of the Scottish National party and the Labour party, to which I referred earlier, clearly point to increasing costs and taxes for Scottish business, which bodes badly for investment, both inward and within Scottish business.

Council House Sales

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many council houses have been sold under right-to-buy legislation.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: At the end of September 1994, more than 300,000 houses had been sold by public sector landlords in Scotland to sitting tenants under the right-to-buy legislation. This has opened up the opportunity for home ownership for many people, and I am delighted that the Government overcame opposition from the Labour party to secure it for them.

Mr. Marshall: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, which confirms that every fifth Scottish family is living in a home bought under the right-to-buy legislation. Is that not remarkable progress from the days when Labour local authorities were loth to co-operate and Labour Members said that no one would want to buy? Does that not show that Conservative policies work to the benefit of the people of Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If one takes into account voluntary sales


as well as right-to-buy sales, the figure is nearly 310,000. We have now substantially overtaken England, as 30 per cent. of Scottish public sector stock has now been sold compared with 27.6 per cent. in England. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who is in his place, should remember when he and his party strongly opposed the right to buy. I believe that they now regret the stance that they once took.

Mr. Watson: The Minister has given us the figures for right-to-buy legislation, but what about those people who choose not to buy but want the right to rent? Will the Minister provide the figures for the number of council houses that have been built since the Conservatives came to power in 1979? Why does he consider it necessary to narrow the right to rent to those authorities that the Government have established? Many people wish to remain council house tenants and want the right to rent a modern house. How many have been built since 1979?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The number of houses built in Scotland since 1979 is nearly 300,000; the number of council houses runs into many tens of thousands. If local authorities wish to choose as their priority to build more council houses, they have the right to do so. Of course, Scottish Homes is giving priority to providing rented housing through housing associations that are especially geared to the needs of priority groups throughout Scotland.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that large rent increases have turned the right to buy into the need to buy? Is he aware that Scottish Homes has increased rents by 4.2 per cent.—twice the rate of inflation? How does he expect ordinary working people, whose wages are either pegged or reduced, to pay those huge rent increases?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that some £800 million a year is being spent on housing benefit targeted on those who need it and who are paying rent. The hon. Gentleman wishes to reduce rents in Scotland, which on average are £7 or £8 below those south of the border, but if less rent is paid, less will be spent on management and maintenance and the housing stock will suffer. If rents are reasonable, management and maintenance can also be reasonable and houses will be in better condition.

Rules and Regulations

Mr. Steen: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the rules and regulations in his Department which have been withdrawn in the last 12 months, or which his Department plans to withdraw in the next 12 months; and what assessment he has made of the impact that this will have on his Department's manpower.

Mr. Lang: I have arranged for information about the Department's deregulation programme to be placed in the Library.

Mr. Steen: Is the Secretary of State aware that more rules and regulations are being passed by the House than are being repealed? Does he agree that the problem is not just Europe, but the interpretation of those rules and regulations by officials in Scotland and elsewhere? How

will the Secretary of State increase the deregulation initiative in Scotland and reduce the number of rules and regulations being considered by the House?

Mr. Lang: I assure my hon. Friend that I am entirely in sympathy with the thrust of his question. It is highly desirable that we reduce the number of regulations as they impose a burden not only on their own administration, but also on those who are obliged, sometimes unnecessarily, to comply with their terms. It is important that they are constantly reviewed and I am ensuring that my Department is fully involved in the deregulation initiative running through all Departments.

Mr. Worthington: Does the Secretary of State set any rules and regulations for the response times of his Ministers to letters? Do those regulations apply to the noble Lord Fraser, and how is it possible to get an answer from the noble Lord in less than two to three months?

Mr. Lang: I am certain that my right hon. and noble Friend responds in far less time to the vast majority of letters sent to him, but I shall certainly draw to his attention the fact that the hon. Gentleman is awaiting a reply to a letter that has been outstanding for that period.

Rail Services

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the outcome of his consultations with British Rail on the proposed withdrawal of sleeper and Motorail services from Scotland and Carlisle.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend and I have discussed a wide range of topics with British Rail relating to railway matters affecting Scotland, including sleeper and Motorail services.

Sir David Steel: Why are Ministers reneging on the undertaking given to the Scottish Grand Committee that consultation would take place before any services were withdrawn? Is the Minister aware that the phrase used by the Secretary of State this afternoon—"diminution of service"—will go down in history, along with "economical with the truth", as a euphemism for the complete destruction of the Motorail service? Does the Minister recognise that it is perverse to cancel Motorail services to Scotland just when we are opening them under the channel?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Following publication of the passenger service requirement, the Franchising Director will consult formally—as the right hon. Gentleman has already been told—with both the rail users consultative committee for Scotland and local authorities before making final decisions on the PSR. Both under nationalisation and now, British Rail has had the power to stop a service at any time if that is its resolve and determination, but I have made it clear, both now and in the past, that final decisions will be made at the end of that formal consultation.
Incidentally, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was entirely wrong: Hansard was not tampered with. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton), who chaired the Grand Committee, has written to every member making the facts absolutely clear. The hon. Gentleman cannot get away with presenting facts that obviously do not accord with reality.

Taxation and Spending

Mr. Ian Bruce: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the proportion of United Kingdom local and national taxation raised in Scotland; and what is the proportion of local and national Government spending in Scotland.

Mr. Duncan: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current annual value of net transfer payments made to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Lang: The Government collect revenue on a United Kingdom basis. In 1992–93, the latest year for which data are available, the revenue raised in Scotland through the four main sources of income tax, national insurance contributions, VAT and local government revenues formed approximately 8.3 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. The Government estimate that in the same year Scotland's share of identifiable Government expenditure was 10 per cent. of the United Kingdom total. That figure excludes expenditure incurred on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole, or which cannot readily be identified as incurred on behalf of particular countries.

Mr. Bruce: Has my hon. Friend considered the idea of establishing a separate Scottish Parliament with revenue-raising powers? Has his Department calculated the extent to which the balance would shift as a result of both the additional costs of such a Parliament and a possible reduction of the positivity with which costs are currently dealt with by the United Kingdom Parliament?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right to identify the potential danger to Scotland if a tax-raising Scottish Parliament were established. With 8.8 per cent. of the United Kingdom's population, Scotland generates less in revenue than her population share and receives more from the United Kingdom Treasury. Consequently, if any tax-raising powers were taken by a Scottish Parliament—as threatened by the Labour party—Scotland's existing funding arrangements would inevitably come under closer scrutiny, and might well lead to the reduction referred to by m hon. Friend.

Mr. Duncan: Given my right hon. Friend's answer, if those net transfer payments to Scotland were removed would not Scotland have far fewer resources to spend on its needs? Is it not also a grave deceit to pretend to the people of Scotland that any shortfall would be made up by payments from the European Union? Is it not abundantly clear that any proposal to devolve tax-raising powers to Scotland would ensure that the people of Scotland ended up poorer?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In this country, we seek to ensure the delivery of comparable standards of public services in all parts of the United Kingdom. That necessarily and properly leads to higher expenditure in some parts of the United Kingdom—such as Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales—that have greater needs. Such expenditure would, however, be put at risk if a tax-raising Parliament were set up in Scotland.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State be honest, and confirm that, if it were not for the oil revenues from

the Scottish sector of the North sea and the benefit to the Treasury from the privatisation of Scotland's public assets, the Government's economic policy would he down the plughole?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. In the last year for which North sea figures are available—1993–94—revenue amounted to some £1.2 billion. That would not begin to bridge the funding gap that Scotland would experience in the circumstances threatened by the Labour party.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Secretary of State accept that many factors must be taken into account when forming a judgment on the disposal of national assets, especially by the Treasury, and that mortgage tax relief subsidy is one of the most important factors? Does he agree that, in that regard, south-east England receives far more from the national Exchequer than Scotland?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is right on that point, but if he considers income tax revenue, VAT revenue, local government revenue and national insurance contributions, he will find that the equation tilts heavily in the other direction.

Culture

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures his Department takes to promote interest about Scotland's life and culture amongst the Scottish diaspora.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: A range of Scottish Office-funded bodies promote international interest in Scottish life and culture, although their activities are not targeted specifically at the Scots diaspora. For example, the Scottish tourist board's marketing and promotional activities continue to foster historical and cultural links in the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where ties with Scotland remain.

Mr. Mackinlay: Does the Secretary of State understand that the monopoly that his Government gave the British Airports Authority over the principal airports of the UK means that people who wish to visit the UK always visit Heathrow first? Should he not have put some time, energy and resources into encouraging people from North America and Australasia to visit Scotland as the first port of call, rather than the overcrowded Heathrow airport?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have great sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. Tourism is the largest employer in Scotland. We have agreed to contribute £20,000 towards the production of a British Council-Scottish Arts Council guide to the arts in Scotland, which is aimed primarily at overseas tourists. The Scotland international register is an initiative to encourage the private sector to develop contacts with distinguished Scots and business men abroad. We hope that those contacts will strengthen enterprise, development and tourism in Scotland.

Manufacturing Industry

Mrs. Adams: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress to discuss manufacturing industry in Scotland.

Mr. Kynoch: My right hon. Friend meets representatives of the Scottish TUC from time to time to discuss a range of matters concerning the Scottish economy.

Mrs. Adams: Does the Minister realise that, since his party came to power in 1979, my constituency has lost some 80 per cent. of its manufacturing jobs? In the light of his inadequate answer to my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) and for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), when will the Government realise that a strong economy cannot be built by people selling each other hamburgers? It will be built only when the Government start to deal with the disasters that have taken place in manufacturing industry.

Mr. Kynoch: I hoped that the hon. Lady might have welcomed the fact that, last month, Babcock Energy Ltd. in her constituency announced that the jobs of its 700-strong work force would be secured as a result of a £125 million order for boilers from a power station in China. She is doing her businesses a great disservice by selling Scotland down the river.

Mr. Ingram: Does the Minister accept that that is the most complacent answer that he could possibly give on one of the key issues facing Scotland? Since the Government came to power, 50 per cent. of all aerospace jobs have been lost to the Scottish economy. Is he aware that Rolls-Royce intends to cut another 600 highly skilled jobs in that economy? Why have the Government remained silent on that announcement? Is it because they do not understand its impact, because they do not care, or both?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman must place the changes in Rolls-Royce in the context of world affairs. He might be interested to know that Rolls-Royce is not alone in its problems. Its two major competitors, General Electric and Pratt and Whitney, have made massive job cuts, including 14,000 redundancies that were announced in 1993. At the same time, Boeing announced 80,000 job losses. He might also like to know that Rolls-Royce in East Kilbride has recently announced two major, long-term repair and maintenance contracts with Cyprus

Airways and China Eastern Airlines. The hon. Gentleman should start talking Scottish prospects up rather than down.

Water Authorities

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to meet the chairmen of the new water authorities to discuss their investment plans.

Mr. Kynoch: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my right hon. Friend gave earlier to the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh).

Mr. Salmond: As we are about to have a discussion founded on the principle of democratic consent, can the Minister point to what area of democratic consent in Scotland justifies the removal of Scottish water from local democratic control?

Mr. Kynoch: The hon. Gentleman should realise that in Scotland over the next 10 to 15 years we have to find some £5 billion of capital expenditure to improve services. My right hon. Friend has set up structures with the intention of ensuring that we get the best value for money. We believe in ensuring that we get the best possible services at the lowest possible cost—something that the hon. Gentleman will never understand.

Higher Education

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Secretary of State for Education to discuss entry requirements for institutions of higher education.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend and I liaise closely with our colleagues in the other education Departments. Requirements for entry to higher education, however, are a matter for the institutions themselves to determine.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that the England and Wales Department for Education has a lot to learn from Scotland? Does he believe, as I do, that there are too many scientists who are inarticulate and too many managers and, perhaps, Members of Parliament too, who are innumerate? Should not we have a broader base of education in England and Wales for entry to university, as in Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: We have a great deal to learn from each other. Access to higher education is being enormously increased, which is to the benefit of students throughout the United Kingdom. We intend to play our full part in that.

Northern Ireland (Framework Documents)

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Northern Ireland.
Almost every day there brings new evidence of the benefits of peace. The conditions taken for granted elsewhere in the United Kingdom are gradually returning. But a return to normal life in Northern Ireland requires much more than just a paramilitary ceasefire, important though that step is. It requires a permanent end to violence; and it requires a balanced political settlement under which all parts of the community can live alongside each other without fear or antagonism.
That is the purpose of the talks process, started in 1991. We need to seek new arrangements for the internal government of Northern Ireland, for the relationship between north and south, and for the relationship between the two Governments.
The British Government have discussed these matters at length with the Northern Ireland political parties and with the Irish Government. I should like to pay tribute to the role played by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Minister of State. Today we have published proposals in two framework documents, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
Let me make it clear from the outset that nothing in these documents will be imposed. The aim is to assist discussion and negotiation with the parties in Northern Ireland. It is not an immutable blueprint.
I urge all hon. Members and people across Northern Ireland to read and study the documents carefully. The proposals in them have been the subject of a number of leaks and misrepresentations, which have resurrected old fears. When people study and consider the documents, I believe that they will come to see that those fears are unfounded. They will see that these proposals are based throughout on the principle of consent. It is made absolutely clear that Northern Ireland will remain a part of the United Kingdom for so long as that is the expressed wish of the people of Northern Ireland.
I am a Unionist who wants peace for all the people of the Union. I cherish Northern Ireland's role within the Union. I have no intention whatsoever of letting that role change, unless it is the democratic wish of the people of Northern Ireland to do so.
I turn to the documents published today. I begin with strand 1, which sets out the Government's ideas for restoring local democracy in Northern Ireland as pall of a full political settlement. That paper has been prepared after consultation and talks with the main political parties in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government played no part in its formulation.
The circumstances in Northern Ireland are widely recognised to be unique in the United Kingdom. There are two traditions with very different political aspirations. What is needed is a structure of government that combines democratic legitimacy with a system of checks and balances. That calls for mechanisms different from those appropriate in the rest of the United Kingdom.
It was those historic differences that meant that, until 1972, there was a Northern Ireland Assembly with a wide range of functions. Since then, however, those functions have been the direct responsibility of central Government—unlike anywhere else in the United Kingdom, where many of them are carried out by elected local authorities. In Northern Ireland, local accountability has been lost, and political talent has been unused.
That is why the Government are now putting forward plans for a new elected Assembly, with responsibilities for a range of subjects at least as wide as those in 1972. The proposals envisage that the Assembly might have a single chamber of about 90 members, elected for a four or five year term. To reflect the special circumstances of Northern Ireland, they would be elected by a form of proportional representation. Where appropriate, decisions in the Assembly would he taken by a weighted majority.
There would be a system of committees to oversee the work of the Northern Ireland Departments, and there would be a separate panel, elected from throughout the whole of Northern Ireland, with a consultative, monitoring and representational role.
The new Assembly would not have tax-raising powers, and would receive its funding from central Government. It would have legislative powers for the functions transferred to it, although it would be for consideration whether it would assume legislative powers from day one, or whether such responsibility would be transferred progressively.
The Assembly would have responsibility for functions that are, in many cases, devolved to local government elsewhere in the United Kingdom, including education and housing. Policing and security matters would, however, remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government and of this Parliament, at least for as long as the terrorist threat makes the active support of the Army necessary in Northern Ireland.
I now turn to strand 2, the arrangements for north-south co-operation. We have today published a joint framework document, "Frameworks for the Future", which has been agreed with the Irish Government. That sets out a series of proposals as a basis for further discussion.
One crucial component is that, as part of an overall settlement, the Irish Government have committed themselves to introducing and to supporting proposals to amend article 2 and article 3 of their constitution. Those amendments would fully reflect the principle of consent in Northern Ireland.
Paragraph 21 of the joint framework document spells out that they would
demonstrably be such that no territorial claim of right to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland contrary to the will of a majority of its people is asserted".
That intention is unambiguous, and was reaffirmed by the Taoiseach this morning.
For their part, the British Government would, in those circumstances, enshrine in our legislation the principle that Northern Ireland's future should reflect the wishes of its people. That would be done either by amending existing legislation or by introducing new legislation. That would not affect the United Kingdom's sovereignty over Northern Ireland, which could only be changed by further primary legislation.
The joint framework document also sets out proposals for a new north-south body, which could carry out a range of consultative, harmonising or executive functions. It would not have free-standing authority: it would be accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to the Irish Parliament respectively. The Northern Ireland members of the body would be drawn from relevant elected heads of Department from the Northern Ireland Assembly, and would naturally reflect policies determined by that Northern Ireland Assembly.
Fears have been expressed that this body would, in effect, give the Irish Government joint sovereignty over Northern Ireland. That is emphatically not the case. It is a proposal for co-operation by agreement between Northern Ireland's representatives and their counterparts in the Republic. Decisions in the body could only be taken where there was agreement north and south. There is no question of a majority outvoting a minority. The Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament would each therefore have an absolute safeguard against proposals it did not approve of.
The north-south body would be established by legislation in this Parliament and in the Irish Parliament. It would discharge or oversee only such functions as were designated for it. There is no predetermined list of those functions: that would be decided only after discussion and agreement with the political parties in Northern Ireland. It would be for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Irish Parliament to decide whether any additional functions should subsequently be designated.
The document also sets out how European Community programmes might be handled in a north-south body. It envisages that the north-south body would be responsible for implementing and managing those programmes which are explicitly designed on a cross-border or island-wide basis. There are currently very few such programmes. Otherwise, the north-south body would have primarily an advisory role.
The House will wish to be reassured that responsibility for determining policy towards the European Union would remain, as now, with the United Kingdom Government.
Let me now turn to strand 3, where the joint framework document sets out proposals for future relations between the British and Irish Governments.
These envisage that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would be replaced by a new agreement between the two Governments. As now, there would be a continuing intergovernmental conference, with a permanent secretariat. The intergovernmental conference would be the forum in which the two Governments would jointly keep the new arrangements under review.
It would be open to either Government to bring up concerns about breaches of the new arrangements and to discuss how they might be resolved. This is the so-called "default mechanism." But there is no question of this process giving the Irish Government the right to take action in respect of the internal government of Northern Ireland. The framework document explicitly sets out that
There would be no derogation from the sovereignty of either Government: each will retain responsibility for the decisions and administration of Government within its own jurisdiction.

As I have sought to emphasise, these documents are intended as a contribution to the talks process. They set out ideas that the Government believe represent a balanced and realistic way forward that could command support across a wide political spectrum in Northern Ireland.
The next step will be for further negotiations to take place with the political parties in Northern Ireland. In those negotiations, others will be naturally be free to put forward their own proposals. I very much hope that everyone will agree to negotiate seriously. There is too much at stake for anyone to stand aside from these discussions.
If agreement is reached in the negotiations, the outcome will be put for approval to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum. I should equally make it clear that there is no question of putting proposals to a referendum before there is agreement between the main political parties.
There is a triple safeguard against any proposals being imposed on Northern Ireland: first, any proposals must command the support of the political parties in Northern Ireland; secondly, any proposals must then be approved by the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum; and thirdly, any necessary legislation must be passed by this Parliament. That provides a triple lock designed to ensure that nothing is implemented without consent.
The prize from a successful outcome to the peace process is immense. We want to see the people of Northern Ireland permanently free from the fear of terrorist violence. We want to see institutions that reflect the different traditions in Northern Ireland in a manner acceptable to all, and we want to enshrine the principle, both north and south, that no change in Northern Ireland's constitutional position can take place without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
I believe that these documents make an important contribution to that process, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Tony Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and I welcome it. As he knows, we have supported the Government throughout the peace process, in times of difficulty as well as in times of progress, and we do so again today without hesitation. People in Northern Ireland should know that, whatever party is in government, this process will continue, pursued, I hope, with the same patience and determination, and motivated by the same desire for peace.
I also applaud the courage and skill of the British and Irish Governments, and, indeed, all those politicians and people who have contributed to this process. In particular, I salute the courage and fortitude of the people of Northern Ireland, who, throughout all those dark years of terrorism, none the less kept faith with peace.
I emphasise too that these are documents for consultation; they are not diktats. They seek balance; they threaten no one's fundamental interests, and therefore no one should fear discussing or debating them.
May I put to the Prime Minister the following points of detail on the document which outlines the new institutions in Northern Ireland, and on the joint framework document? I would make one preliminary point. Although, of course, the Government will want to negotiate on the basis of their own documents, will the


right hon. Gentleman confirm that any other documents tabled by other parties will be seriously examined and taken into account in this process?
On the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, the Prime Minister will not, of course, expect me to agree with his assertion that devolution is suitable only for one part of the United Kingdom. Will the right hon. Gentleman say what legislative powers he envisages, not only executive powers, for the devolved Northern Ireland Assembly, and over what specified areas? When he says that the funding will come from central Government, is it to come in block, or will specific sums be earmarked for particular areas?
As to the north-south body, again as a preliminary point, will the Prime Minister confirm—I think that it may be helpful—that the principle of cross-border co-operation already exists in certain areas such as transport and tourism and energy? It is therefore not an unknown concept.
Can we be clear about the functions of this new body? In respect of the executive functions, am I right in thinking that the new body will be responsible for European Union programmes, but only those designated as covering both north and south? In implementing those programmes, will it deal directly with the European Union or only through the Governments? In that connection, will it have its own executive officers and civil servants?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also spell out the difference between the north-south body's executive functions and what are called its harmonising functions? Is it right that, in respect of the harmonising areas, such as education or industry or agriculture, the obligation is to try to agree a common policy, but in specified parts of those areas only, and that, in any event, that implementation is through either the Assembly or the Dail?
As to the third strand, relations between the Irish and UK Governments, the document talks of both Governments seeking ways of enshrining the protection of civil rights in their respective jurisdictions. What does the right hon. Gentleman envisage that the UK will do to implement that, and is it by way of legislation? Will he be a little more precise about the reciprocal constitutional change needed in the UK as a result of the package that he has announced? What will be the next step? When does he foresee talks beginning, and between whom?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that none of those proposals will come about at all without consent? Parties must agree, people must agree, Parliament must agree. Consent, as I think that he was saying, is of the absolute essence. It has at its core the principle of self-determination. The people of Northern Ireland will choose their own future. There lies the power and there lies, also, the responsibility—a responsibility to be exercised not just for today, but for future generations.
The house of peace has stayed shut and locked in Northern Ireland for too many years. The agreement is the key to its door. I have no doubt that entering in will pose its own risks and challenges, but how much better that will be than to stay for ever outside, battered by the elements of hatred and mistrust. Today, therefore, across the House of Commons, let hope shape history—the hope of the ordinary, decent people in Northern Ireland, of both

traditions, that they should be freed from the tyranny of violence, to enjoy the peace which they deserve and which we have all sought for so long.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, and for the unqualified manner in which he expressed that support. He is entirely right to illustrate to the House that nothing in the document is a diktat—nothing seeks to be imposed, nothing seeks to be threatening, and everything is there to be determined by consent and agreement.
I shall deal with the specific questions that the right hon. Gentleman has posed. Will the Government, in the talks yet to continue, be prepared to accept and consider other documents? The answer, in unqualified terms, is, yes, we will welcome other contributions to the debate, and we shall wish to explore them in the discussions that lie ahead.
The devolved Assembly will deal with many matters traditionally dealt with in local government, and some beyond. It will deal with education, health and agriculture—broadly, the range of responsibilities that existed in 1972 when Northern Ireland, for historic reasons, had its own Assembly. Funding is not for each individual aspect of responsibility, but will come in a block, as the right hon. Gentleman anticipated.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, cross-border functions currently exist.
The right hon. Gentleman's description of the executive element was entirely correct, so I need not reiterate that. The Executive will deal with the European Union through the Government and will have its own secretariat, drawn jointly from north and south—answerable to the body and to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to the Dail.
The right hon. Gentleman was entirely right about the obligation to try to agree, and I need add nothing more to that.
The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's question about civil rights is, yes, we shall seek to determine civil rights. That was a matter raised by each of the political parties—I think, without exception—with whom we had discussions. There is much work still to be done beyond the principle that we shall seek to enshrine such rights.
Bits of the document may require legislation, but it is as yet unclear precisely which ones. Where necessary, we shall proceed, with agreement, towards such legislation.
On the subject of reciprocal changes, we shall seek to enshrine the principle of consent in the joint declaration—which was echoed again in the documents this morning—in British legislation. That could be done by amendment to the Government of Ireland Act 1920 or by fresh legislation. It will not affect Britain's sovereign right to govern Northern Ireland.
I reiterate that the right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to say that the principle of consent is writ large through every page, every action and every purpose that exists within the document.

Mr. Tom King: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the most common criticism made of the Anglo-Irish agreement by people in Northern Ireland was that it was imposed, and that it would have been far better if it had been advanced on the basis of a contribution to further discussions between the parties in Northern Ireland? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in my


judgment, the basis on which he has announced the framework document today precisely meets the criticisms made at that time? I congratulate him on that.
Are not my right hon. Friend and all the brave people of Northern Ireland, to whom the Leader of the Opposition rightly referred, entitled to expect that the political leaders of those people should now carry out the undertaking that they claimed to me to be capable of discharging? They should now recognise the document as a basis for discussion and as an opportunity to negotiate and achieve a sensible and lasting agreement.

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I think that he is entirely right about the resentment and concern that was felt in Northern Ireland over the manner of the birth of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I think that that legacy has haunted subsequent efforts to move towards finding a better way forward in Northern Ireland.
As my right hon. Friend says, the new legislation will be discussed. I hope that it will remove the difficulties that existed at the time of the Anglo-Irish Agreement precisely because it will be discussed and, if legislation proceeds, it will proceed only after that discussion.
I am grateful that we have already received some written proposals from some political parties—the Democratic Unionist party and the Ulster Unionist party—for consideration alongside the framework document. Of course we are prepared to consider them. I hope that we will have the opportunity to consider them with the political leaders themselves, and consider also the propositions that we were asked to provide, and have now provided, in the framework document.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: Is the Prime Minister confident that the Irish Republican Army has fully understood his message which is enshrined in the framework document: that, when it resumes its violence, it should not bomb the Baltic Exchange, since his Government have now distanced themselves from 90 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland who have eschewed violence over the past 20 years and who have vested their faith in the ballot box?
How can the Prime Minister endorse paragraph 9 of the document? It says:
The primary objective … is to promote and establish agreement among the people of the island of Ireland".s
What does that have to do with Northern Ireland? How can the Prime Minister endorse harmonisation of policies between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic when Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom by the will of its people demonstrated at the ballot box?
When the Prime Minister comes to write his memoirs, does he believe that, like his predecessor, he will regret his part in driving Northern Ireland back at least 10 years by promoting this dishonourable blueprint for a united Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I understand the strong feelings that the hon. Gentleman has about this matter, but I beg him to examine more carefully what is in the document, and the way in which the document intends to proceed. I cannot accept that it drives Northern Ireland back 10 years to try to seek a peace which may be entrenched

permanently in Northern Ireland after generations of mistrust and hatred. That is the purpose which underlies all the actions in the document.
As far as the Irish Republican Army and a message to it are concerned, I simply say to the hon. Gentleman and to everyone in Northern Ireland that our determination to resist terrorism has always been there, it is there now and it will remain there. That is why we have had British troops on the streets of Northern Ireland for a quarter of a century. That is why I increased the number of British troops in Northern Ireland. That is why I am prepared to say to the hon. Gentleman at this moment that, for so long as I am here, I will keep troops on the streets of Northern Ireland for as long as it is necessary to protect the people of Northern Ireland against terrorism, from whatever source it may come.
If the hon. Gentleman seeks my message to the Irish Republican Army, it is this. While it bombs and kills, it has an implacable opponent in Downing street and in the Government. If it is prepared to talk and return to democratic politics, we will offer it a ready ear. We will discuss with it how it may return to democratic politics, so that the next generation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency may not face the privations, the murders, the sorrows, the hardships, the deaths and the funerals year after year that he and his constituents have suffered in the past.
That is the game in which we are engaged at the moment. Where do I find myself in Northern Ireland? I place myself alongside 100 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland and believe that it is right to take action to move out of the spiral of despair that existed there and move towards the possibility of a permanent peace. I know that it will be difficult; I know that it cannot be done without difficulty, and perhaps it cannot he done without disagreements, setbacks and problems. But I say to the hon. Gentleman that it is right to try. I do not believe that any Prime Minister of the United Kingdom—Conservative or non-Conservative—could or should sit in Downing street without actively trying to find a way out of the problems which have existed for so long.
As for harmonisation, when the hon. Gentleman studies the document he will not find things in it which will cause him fear. I happily say to the hon. Gentleman that I will sit down with him and go through the document paragraph by paragraph, line by line and word by word to try to reassure him that there is nothing in it for him to fear, and everything in it which may make progress to what he wishes for his constituents and for Northern Ireland and what I and this House wish for his constituents and for Northern Ireland—a permanent peace and a prosperous future.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: As my right hon. Friend tries to reassure those with misgivings about the document, will he take every opportunity to emphasise that it imposes nothing but rather suggests a possible way forward, that its primary purpose is to promote meaningful debate between the political parties in Northern Ireland, and that those parties may, if they wish, during bilateral talks with each other or with the Government, bring forward alternative suggestions?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The document seeks to impose nothing, and its primary purpose is debate. My hon. Friend touches on a very important point when he talks about the possibility of


further bilateral discussions with the political parties. It will be necessary for further bilateral meetings with the parties, both to discuss proposals which they may have and to seek wherever necessary to take the parties through our proposals and discuss with them any fears which they may have about the proposals in the document. My door is open, as are those of my Ministers, for those bilateral discussions, which could start at any moment.

Mr. John Hume: Could I begin by placing on record on behalf of myself, my party and the people we represent our deepest appreciation to the Prime Minister and the Government for the enormous effort they have made, and for putting this problem at centre stage and at the top of their agenda, because this is the greatest human problem facing the Government and the peoples of these islands? May I also pay tribute to the leaders of the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties for placing the matter above party politics—where it belongs—so that we can have a totally unanimous approach to tackling this serious problem?
Does the Prime Minister agree that, when all the words have been taken away from the document published today, the fundamental message is that the problem we must solve in Ireland is not that we are a divided piece of earth but that we are a divided people? Does he agree that that can be resolved only by agreement, and that all the resources to which both Governments are now committing themselves should be committed to promoting that agreement? Agreement threatens no section of our people.
I say to the Unionist people that I understand their fears and tensions, given the 25 years which we have been through. We have said before that this problem cannot be resolved without the participation and agreement of the Unionist people, because of their geography and numbers. We know that they do not trust Governments. All they are now being asked to do is trust themselves, and to come to the table. If they do not agree with this, they should come to the table and join all the parties and both Governments as soon as possible, to begin the difficult process of reaching agreement.
Let us all recognise that all our past attitudes have brought us to where we are, and have built those terrible walls in Belfast. If those walls are ever to come down, all sides must re-examine those past attitudes and come forward with new arrangements and relationships, which respect our differences but which at last harness all our energies to spill our sweat together, and not our blood, so that the next century will be the first century in the island's history in which we have no killings on our streets, and no young people have to go to other lands to earn a living.

The Prime Minister: I know that that has long been the dream of the hon. Gentleman, and the whole House knows the role that he has played in moving towards it.
The hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the fact that there cannot be an agreement without taking the majority tradition in Northern Ireland entirely with it. Agreement cannot be imposed; it will not be imposed; it would not work if anyone sought to impose it.
One of the problems that one needs to try to deal with is the problem of old fears and of trust. That requires consensus, agreement and a lot of discussion. I know that some people are pessimistic about whether such agreements can he reached, and whether such progress

can be made. If those pessimists had been confronted two years ago with today's situation, they would not have believed the changes that have taken place in Northern Ireland in the past two years.
They would not have believed that the joint declaration could be agreed; they would not have accepted that the joint framework document would be agreed, or that we would have six months of peace, or that it would be possible for any British Government to sit down and talk to the political representatives of the paramilitaries of both sides.
These are but a small example of the changes in Northern Ireland over the past two years. Heaven alone knows, there are difficulties enough ahead, but if we look at what has been done in the past two years and take the hurdles in the future one by one, with patience I believe that they can be overcome, trust can be forged and the old fears can be diluted. That is how I hope we shall all be able to move forward.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: Will my right hon. Friend accept the wholehearted support of the members of the British-Irish inter-parliamentary body, British and Irish alike, for this historic process? Will he firmly reiterate yet again that sovereignty is not at stake, and that the principle of consent reigns paramount? Finally, does he agree that it is now for the people of Northern Ireland to seize this opportunity, and to ensure that the changes that will secure the peace are made on their behalf?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and for the role that he has played for many years in Anglo-Irish relations. He is right to stress the fact that consent is paramount. I guarantee that it will remain so in the future.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Prime Minister recognise that, while there are hound to be differences between the parties about the details of these proposals—we, for example, feel that a Bill of Rights should have been part of the framework—the discussion process is there to consider differences and to work out an agreement that will win the votes of the people of Northern Ireland? It is they who will decide. Is it not also clear that, when it comes to determination to maintain this peace process, the three largest parties in this House are—unusually, but absolutely—united?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had to say. The most clear-cut exposition of the fact that he is right—that the people of Northern Ireland must decide, for without them there can be no agreement—and of the fact that that is the view of the British Government, is the guarantee that I have given that, after the political parties have reached an agreement—if they can—we shall put the outcome of their discussions to the people of Northern Ireland in a referendum, so that all the people of Northern Ireland will have the chance to express their view on the proposals that will affect their future.

Sir Patrick Cormack: As this remains the sovereign Parliament of the people of Northern Ireland, can my right hon. Friend, whose


courageous persistence I salute, say what role he envisages for elected Members of this House in the parliamentary forum?

The Prime Minister: There is of course a parliamentary forum now; it will continue. As the talks process proceeds—this follows from what the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) just said from the Liberal Bench—the Government are open to propositions that would be helpful to these discussions from every hon. Member. I hope that those with positive points to put will make them. In due course, provided we get through the first hurdles of agreement between the parties and the referendum, it will of course be for this House to determine the legislation that will be laid before it.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Although there is much in these framework documents that will not be welcomed by Unionists throughout Northern Ireland, I think it only right on behalf of my constituents to place on record our appreciation of the fact that the Prime Minister is giving such priority to the problems of Northern Ireland. In addition, I add the concern and interest that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition is equally taking in matters affecting peace in our Province.
In the Prime Minister's statement, he said that he was a Unionist. He has repeatedly said that throughout this morning. Can he therefore assure the people of Northern Ireland this afternoon, as the Union and the maintenance of the Union is the key to progress and peace within Northern Ireland, that, as a result of his new policy announced today, the Union between Great Britain and Northern Ireland is more secure today than it was yesterday?

The Prime Minister: There are three points that I would make to the right hon. Gentleman. First, I would thank him for his initial words. Secondly, I would say to him that the guarantee of the Union for the people of Northern Ireland lies within their own will. For so long as the people of Northern Ireland share the view that they wish to be part of the United Kingdom, they will remain part of the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman will also have heard the Taoiseach make it clear this morning that he was removing the claim to territory that exists in articles 2 and 3 of the Irish constitution. He set out the point about jurisdiction quite clearly this morning. That has been a source of great friction in Northern Ireland.
I believe and hope that we are now in a position where we shall be able to remove some of the old fears that have existed, as the immediate hubbub settles around the publication of this document, and look at a practical route forward. I am willing to do that. I think that it is clear from what the Leader of the Opposition and the deputy leader of the Liberal party have said that there is widespread consensus among rt hon. and hon. Members across the House, who would be prepared to give as much time, trouble and interest as is necessary to try to solve the problems that have bedevilled Northern Ireland for so long.

Sir James Kilfedder: May I preface my question to the Prime Minister by stating my passionate dedication to reconciliation between the two sections of

our community in Northern Ireland and between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic? But the Prime Minister will understand—the Leader of the Opposition referred to this—that many have died over 26 years of terrorism in Northern Ireland. My mind goes out to all those who have been murdered by the terrorists, men who now pose as peacemakers.
With regard to the last Northern Ireland Assembly, my right hon. Friend gave the date as 1972. The last Northern Ireland Assembly lasted from 1982 to 1986, when it was brought to an end by the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I was the Speaker of that Assembly. It was my regret that the SDLP and other nationalists boycotted that Assembly, which was, in fact, a good basis for political progress in Northern Ireland. If that had not happened in 1982 to 1986, imagine just where we would be today.
I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that the surest foundation for political progress in Northern Ireland, as indeed anywhere else in the world, is trust and good will as well as consent. Will he therefore consider the establishment of another Assembly as soon as possible, without all the details to which I see reference in the document, which would allow elected representatives to get together, to get to know each other and to work out their own problems? As a matter of good will—I believe that that exists today in Northern Ireland—they could develop good relations with their opposite numbers in the Dublin Parliament.

The Prime Minister: Of course, if that is the wish of the parties, we would respect and honour that wish. That is certainly a wish that may legitimately be put on the table for discussion in the manner that my hon. Friend has mentioned.
My hon. Friend mentioned the two sections of the community for which he has affection. I believe that the best thing we can do for the two sections of the community is to continue to try to remove the strife and the problems that have divided them for so long.
My hon. Friend referred to those who died in the many years of terrorism. We all feel strongly about that—hon. Members from Northern Ireland understandably more strongly, from more direct involvement than others. Our aim surely must be that no more people are killed in that fashion. I very much hope that we will be able to ensure that there are not.
My hon. Friend referred to the Assembly, in which, as Speaker, he played a distinguished role for a long time. Of course, the surest foundation for the future is trust and goodwill. Trust and good will is what I ask for and what I seek, and what I hope will carry these talks forward.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: The Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic signed the joint declaration on 15 December two years ago. They gave themselves an awesome responsibility when they committed themselves to remove the causes of the conflict, to overcome the legacy of history and to heal the divisions that have resulted.
Does the Prime Minister agree that those responsibilities have been furthered by the framework document, which was published today, which is based on consent and which can be implemented only through agreement? Does he further agree that that primary agreement—not exclusively—will be between those people represented by the Ulster Unionist party and by


our own party within Northern Ireland; and that, as two parties representing the vast majority of the people in the north of Ireland, of both traditions, we also have an awesome responsibility to pursue the noble objective of peace and to make the concessions which are going to be required, not just from Unionism but from nationalism as well; and that, if we pursue that line, then we will all be fulfilling those responsibilities?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and am grateful for what he had to say. He is entirely right that the principle determinants of a permanent peace, if it is achievable, will have been the political parties and the people of Northern Ireland. The role of any British Government, and the role of documents like the framework document, is the role of a facilitator. We will put in front of people ideas that we hope will bring them together, but it is for the political parties to decide whether those are the right ideas for their constituents and for their future, and that is what I hope that they will do.
I will make the point, if I may, even more clearly about the joint framework document. It is not, as the hon. Gentleman implied, there on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It is not a diktat. It is there for the political parties and the people to accept it, to reject it, or to change it. But it is there for discussion, to bring the parties together, in the way that the hon. Gentleman speaks of.

Sir John Cope: In supporting my right hon. Friend, which I do wholeheartedly, could I ask him to emphasise to the Irish Government that the changes proposed to the Republic's constitution are not only of the greatest constitutional importance, as has been emphasised, but are an essential prerequisite before any new north-south body can be set up, because that should be a meeting between representatives of equal administrations trying to co-operate and not with one side committed to trying to interfere in and take over the other, which is what some people fear?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend is entirely right about that, and of course he speaks with great knowledge, from his own distinguished period at the Northern Ireland Office. I agree with him about the importance of the changes proposed in articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. I think that many people anticipated that there might be some change in article 3. I think that far fewer people imagined that there would be change in article 2. That is what has been agreed, and confirmed again this morning.
The change that is proposed will address both articles 2 and 3 of the constitution. The purpose of the change will be to remove any jurisdiction or territorial claim of right over the territory of Northern Ireland, and that will remain the position while it is contrary to the will of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Prime Minister referred to the need for the approval of the main—the main—political parties before any proposal is put to the people by way of a referendum. Will the Prime Minister spell out precisely what he means by "the main political parties"? Will he make it absolutely clear that the

threat of a boycott by any party will not be allowed to jeopardise this historic, and perhaps unique, opportunity for a peaceful settlement?

The Prime Minister: While I seek the widest possible consensus to this agreement, what I do not wish to do is seek to place any political party, large or small, beyond the pale of these discussions, providing that they are a legitimate and democratic political party. We seek this wide agreement for the very practical reason that, if we can get the wide agreement, we will win the peace.
What we have learnt from the history of Northern Ireland is that any significant part of the community, if it dissents, can in practice frustrate a move forward. We have learnt that from experience time and time again in recent years. It is for that reason that we will seek the widest possible agreement. I do not wish to specify which particular parties and run through them: I think that we know which the main political parties are. But there are other distinguished voices in Northern Ireland whom one might not regard as a main political party. We would seek to ensure that those distinguished voices were also heard.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I commend my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his immense courage and determination in seeking to achieve a lasting peace in Northern Ireland. I think that I speak on behalf of not only everyone in the Chamber but those outside in wishing him success in his initiative and that of the Government.
However, can he perhaps explain to me, bearing in mind that those responsible for the killing and bombing in Northern Ireland during the past 25 to 26 years have stated through their spokesman, Mr. Gerry Adams, that their sole objective is to get the United Kingdom out of Northern Ireland, how the two objectives of the peace that we all want and the union in which I and, dare I say to my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister of this country believes, can be achieved?

The Prime Minister: I think what needs to be done as far as the paramilitaries are concerned—the IRA and, indeed, the Protestant paramilitaries as well—is to disattach them from the legitimate support of the people of Northern Ireland; to disattach those who legitimately wish for a nationalist future from the violent men of the IRA. I think that that has significantly happened in the period since the joint declaration.
It is certainly equally the case that the joint declaration has made a remarkable difference in the support that the IRA had previously received from many sources outside Northern Ireland. There is a changing tide of opinion towards those who wish to pursue by violence an end that is not legitimate.
The other great change, of course, is that the change in the Irish constitution actually enshrines the legitimacy of Northern Ireland's position. It is not easy to over-emphasise the significant changes that we have seen in Northern Ireland during the past few years. It is not all that long ago that the only people who would have agreed with the principle of consent in Northern Ireland would have been the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland and the British Government. The principle of consent is now


accepted almost everywhere. That is one illustration of the changing nature of debate in Northern Ireland that I believe will meet the point that my hon. Friend raises.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join in congratulating the right hon. Gentleman and his Government, and the Government of the Republic, and not least the former Taoiseach, Mr. Reynolds, on the work that they have done in achieving the publication of this quite historic document today.
Is he aware that, on reading that document, careful attention is paid to the dignity, the rightful aspirations and the integrity of each of the traditional communities within Northern Ireland and, on the basis of that document, nobody has anything to fear when entering freely into discussions with the right hon. Gentleman and his Government and with the other parties in Northern Ireland; that the essence of consent is very much there? Is he also aware that, should this brave initiative, this try which is well worth making, sadly fail, at the end of the day people will have to return to the same principles that are enshrined in the documents published today?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has to say. I agree that there is nothing to fear from continuing in these discussions, precisely for the reason that has been spelt out by hon. Member after hon. Member on both sides of the House—that we proceed with consent and by agreement. It is a rational way to proceed. I believe in the politics of reason, and proceeding in this way is an illustration of the politics of reason.

Mr. James Couchman: I add my congratulations to my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office for their considerable achievement in producing the document. My right hon. Friend has stated wisely that the state of emergency will continue, and that law and order will continue to be administered by the British Government. Does he agree that the state of emergency can end only when all the weapons on all sides of the conflict in Northern Ireland are surrendered? Will he further reassure the House, as he did in his statement on the Downing street declaration in December 1993, that there are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I am happy to reaffirm to my hon. Friend that there are no political prisoners in Northern Ireland, and we do not accept that term in any sense. The purpose of removing weapons is crucial to ensuring that significant progress is made in future. That, of course, is not directly dealt with in the documents published today. It is a matter under discussion with the political representatives of the paramilitary groups in the discussions that the Government are having with them at present. We are moving towards discussing such issues as the decommissioning of arms, and my hon. Friend is entirely right to draw attention to the central importance of success in that role.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: May I say on behalf of Plaid Cymru that we support unconditionally and wish well the important step that has been taken by the Prime Minister and the Government today?
May I press the Prime Minister to clarify the role of the Northern Ireland Assembly? He mentioned that it would have functions that belonged to local government, but he also said that it was to be a legislative assembly. Local government is not a legislative tier of government. Will he confirm that there will be full law-making powers in the Northern Ireland Assembly over the functions that fall into its remit, and that we are talking about a powerful assembly for Northern Ireland, not a glorified county council?

The Prime Minister: Yes, if that is what is wished. What we have put forward today are ideas for the political parties themselves to determine. I reiterate that it is not a prescription. The Northern Ireland Assembly would have legislative functions, it would not have tax-raising powers, and it would bid for its money in terms of block grant and utilise that money.
For many of the functions that would be devolved to it—although the hon. Gentleman makes the point about legislation, as opposed to the order-making and byelaw powers that often exist with local authorities—the Northern Ireland Assembly would have legislative authority, but it would need to bid for the money, and that would be provided to it in block grant form. It would not have the power to raise resources, and it would emphatically not be a tax-raising assembly.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, far from driving Northern Ireland back by 10 years, what he has achieved over the 14 short months since the signing of the Downing street declaration is to drive the peace process forward in a way which many people said was literally impossible at the time? He, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State are to be congratulated on that. Although the north-south body refers to the designation of delegated functions, because that section also talks about the agreement of the parties, as the document does throughout, there is really no reason why all the parties should not participate in the talks on that basis.

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend, as he knows from his own period as a Northern Ireland Minister precisely how people feel about those issues, and precisely what the difficulties are; I am particular grateful to him for his comments with that in mind. As far as the designation of authorities is concerned, it is worth spelling out the point clearly, so that it cannot be misunderstood by people in Northern Ireland, and I would not wish it to be.
In the first instance, this would be discussed among the political parties. If they agreed, there would be a referendum. After the referendum, there would be legislation in the House. The Assembly would then be set up, and any changes—any further powers that might then be devolved to the north-south body—would be devolved by the Northern Ireland Assembly itself. Agreement in the north-south body could be reached only with the agreement of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The fear that arose at one stage in the past that this would be an entirely independent, entirely autonomous, high-powered executive body that would rapidly change the mode of existence and way of life across a great swathe of functions in Northern Ireland is self-evidently wrong. I hope that that fear has been well and truly put at rest by the documents published today.

Madam Speaker: Thank you, Prime Minister. I now bring this session to an end.

BILL PRESENTED

CRIMINAL APPEAL

Mr. Secretary Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. David Maclean and Mr. Nicholas Baker, presented a Bill to amend provisions relating to appeals and references to the Court of Appeal in criminal cases; to establish a Criminal Cases Review Commission and confer functions on, and make other provision in relation to, the Commission; to amend section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and introduce in Northern Ireland provisions similar to those of that section; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

Breast Cancer (National Plan)

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to formulate a national plan for combating breast cancer.
The incidence of breast cancer in the United Kingdom is the highest in the world. Government statistics show that each year there are 30,000 new cases. There are nearly 16,000 deaths from breast cancer per year, and the United Kingdom has poorer five-year survival rates than any other European country or the United States. Those statistics signal a clear need for action, and that is what my Bill is intended to achieve.
The Bill will require the Government to call a conference to establish a national action plan on breast cancer, based on the plan that is now so successful in America. The conference to formulate such a response there was called by President Clinton shortly after his inauguration, following a great deal of pressure which resulted in the presentation to the White House of a petition with 2.5 million signatures. The conference that I want the Government to call must embrace and involve the full spectrum of individuals, groups and organisations concerned with breast cancer.
In America, invitations were extended to 150 representatives—members of advocacy groups, breast cancer sufferers, representatives of private industry, academics, scientists, doctors and people from the media, education and specialist cancer units, as well as many others with a legitimate interest. The action plan that was drawn up at the conference stated:
these invited participants worked together in a unique and unprecedented partnership that combined scientific and technical expertise with social insights and personal and professional experience and commitment.
I have no doubt that that experience could be repeated here: indeed, we have already seen many exciting new initiatives, such as the launch of the Macmillan breast cancer registry on Monday, and many others.
The United States came up with its plan at about the time when the Army Medical Command diverted $210 million from the defence budget to breast cancer. Thus, the action plan had an immediate budget. Just imagine if we could use some of the money from the Trident programme to help women to combat this dreadful disease. In the United States the political commitment was there, and so was the money. That was very important.
On 14 December last year, the all-party group on breast cancer held a seminar which many eminent professors and medical professionals attended, as did many user groups comprising those connected with breast cancer. The purpose of the seminar was to discuss the merits of a national plan. I believe that it was a huge success, and I pay tribute to all who attended and contributed.
At the end of the seminar, people were unanimous in their support for a national action plan. It should be noted that hon. Members from all parties attended, and that all parties in the House support my Bill.
As I have said, superb initiatives are already under way, and some excellent work is already being undertaken. Much of it, however, is fragmented. As we heard on Monday, services, in particular, are a lottery—the Macmillan document makes that clear.
The abolition of the regional health authorities is causing great concern. The British Breast Group recommends access to specialist facilities—it is a keynote of its recommendations—but uncertainty of funding remains. Who will guarantee, for instance, that purchasers will pay for the use of such facilities if they are established?
The document produced in the United States of America is a blueprint drawn to highlight opportunities to advance and apply knowledge about the causes, diagnosis, prevention, treatment and ultimate eradication of this dreadful disease. That document has acted as a catalyst in co-ordinating actions relating to breast cancer. There is no reason why we cannot do the same here.
The first part of such a plan would concentrate on improving access to services. That is at the core of British Breast Group's report, which is clear in its demands. It says that all patients with breast disease should have access to high-quality care. The characteristics of such care should include accurate and timely diagnosis, appropriate treatment and follow-up, effective communication, skilled psychosocial support, immediate access to other specialist facilities as required, and collection of data on outcome measures.
The importance of improving co-ordination and information management among providers cannot be overstated. It is also vital to increase participation of under-served and at-risk populations in breast cancer programmes dealing with risk factors. Early detection, diagnosis and treatment are essential. That would mean targeting and working with educationists and the media, which would be important if the Government were to adopt a national strategy.
Part two of a national plan should involve research into the causes and cures of breast cancer. That research must be properly funded. I would make the same demands of a Labour Government, were they in power.
In the United States, the following plan was put into operation. It aims to identify and to foster promising new areas of basic research through interagency, inter-disciplinary and private and public collaboration; to facilitate collaboration among basic, clinical behavioural, epidemiological and health services, plus scientists across the disciplines—which has been successful in some ways; and to organise and support multi-disciplinary research and collaborative efforts, using a wide range of mechanisms that maximise individual and group efforts.
Part three of the national plan would, as in the United States, establish comprehensive patient data registries and

material banks as research tools. That would need national funding. The infrastructure must be put in place; more important, it must be paid for.
Part four of the plan would increase opportunities for research training in sectors related to breast cancer. The United States, for example, is expanding the scope and breadth of biomedical and behavioural research activities relating to breast cancer. It is providing adequate resources and mechanisms to speed the translation from the lab to the clinic of new therapeutic opportunities. It is making clinical trials more widely available to women with breast cancer, and women who are at risk from breast cancer.
At our seminar in December, Alison Coates from Bosom Friends, a Bradford-based support group, commented:
I was diagnosed breast cancer at the age of 24. Personally, what I would like to know is what research and trials are taking place to prevent cancer occurring in women outside the screening age group. I have not been invited to take part in any clinical trials, although I have put myself forward on numerous occasions.
My plan would utilise such women, who want to take part in finding the causes of breast cancer.
Most important, the United States is supporting research on the prevention of the causes of breast cancer. Clearly, we need to persuade the Government that a national action plan is necessary. That means picking up the bill for research, and not leaving it to the charities. There is a serious need to support and fund clinical trials, and to support an infrastructure. The British Breast Group has made many recommendations that should be implemented, as has the Calman and Culyer report.
I give the final word to a 32-year-old woman from Bosom Friends in Bradford, Sue Patterson, who told the seminar held by the all-party group that, after suffering this dreadful disease, she was told in follow-up advice to lie on her back and think of England. She told us:
I am thinking of England and we do have a public voice. Women are coming forward. We are prepared to be mobilised. We are prepared even to go on the streets. We really do feel we are being forgotten, that is why we call upon this Government to establish a National Plan of Action on Breast Cancer.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Alice Mahon, Mr. Malcolm Chisholm, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Ms Liz Lynne, Mrs. Audrey Wise, Mr. Harold Elletson, Ms Dawn Primarolo, Mr. Bernard Jenkin, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, Ms Jean Corston and Mr. Eric Illsley.

BREAST CANCER (NATIONAL PLAN)

Mrs. Alice Mahon accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to formulate a national plan for combating breast cancer: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 31 March, and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Value Added Tax

The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): I beg to move,
That the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings) Order 1995 (S.1., 1995, No. 280), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Value Added Tax (Protected Buildings) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 283), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Amendment) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 281), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 279), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.
That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Amendment) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 291), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There are five value added tax orders before the House. I shall first introduce three of them and then speak to the remaining two separately. The first three are closely related and deal with VAT on the construction industry. It is a difficult and contentious area of VAT liability, but these measures together would deregulate, simplify and give greater certainty to the law. They also address many points of criticism made by VAT tribunals in recent years.
The majority of the changes were the subject of an announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 21 July last year. Draft legislation was then exposed for comment and an extra-statutory concession was announced at that time which granted some of the main changes immediately.
The initial reaction to the changes from the building industry was very positive, in that many issues that had been the subject of innumerable, costly and time-consuming disputes were about to be resolved. Indeed, the president of the construction industry joint taxation committee wrote to my right hon. and learned Friend in the following terms:
I and the whole of my committee were delighted with the news on the 21st July about these VAT changes to be introduced in your next Budget. It is particularly pleasing that the reforms have been given immediate effect by way of extra-statutory concession.
Following the consultation exercise, the Government noted a number of good suggestions and also some legitimate concerns expressed by the industry. We have therefore made some suitable changes to the construction order which is now before the House.
The present law allows for the zero-rating of most goods and services in the course of the construction of a new house or flat and certain other limited categories of building. That and other provisions mean that the sale of all new houses is effectively VAT-free. Conversely, any work to an existing building, with the notable exception of listed buildings, is taxable. That means that a person who enlarges his house pays 17.5 per cent. on the cost of the work, as does the entrepreneur who converts a derelict factory into flats or the couple who convert a disused barn into a house. That has been the position.
The major change in the new construction order is to extend zero-rating to the conversion of non-residential buildings into houses and flats. That is a significant and welcome boost to the hard-pressed construction industry. It would also help the regeneration of inner-city areas by the creation of new, affordable housing.

Mr. William O'Brien: Will the Minister take into consideration the position of some charitable organisations which acquire buildings that need to be adapted into day centres? Is the Minister saying that, under the changed orders for VAT on building, any charitable organisation that acquires a building which requires alteration so that it may be used as a day centre to accommodate disabled people, elderly people and so on will not pay VAT on those conversions?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The new concession covers the conversion of a non-residential building into a dwelling or collection of dwellings or residential accommodation. Therefore, it does not extend to the creation of a day centre. It is a major concession, but, if the hon. Gentleman believes that it does not go far enough, Madam Deputy Speaker, he may catch your eye and explain how far he would like it to go, and I shall endeavour, at the end of the debate, to tell the hon. Gentleman of the further reasoning that caused us to stop at dwellings and residential accommodation.
Usually, the benefit of zero-rating will be obtained when the property in question is sold for the first time, but we have made special provision for housing associations, which are often subject to restrictions on selling their housing stock. In those cases, the order will allow the builder to zero-rate his services. Likewise, someone who himself converts a building, such as a barn, into a dwelling will be able to recover the VAT that he has paid under an amended DIY housebuilders scheme.
I have mentioned that we aim for all houses to be effectively free of VAT, but that cannot necessarily apply to the contents of those houses. It would be grossly unfair to the general public and retailers, and very expensive in revenue terms, if a new house could be sold with tax-free items such as carpets, curtains or white goods such as refrigerators and freezers. Since 1973, we have therefore blocked the VAT relief on certain items incorporated into a house.
The order relaxes that list of blocked goods and now reflects the requirements of the building regulations. Whereas previously all electrical items were blocked, developers can now obtain tax-free installation in a new building of all ventilation equipment, and safety equipment such as burglar alarms, lifts, hoists and waste disposal units. Those changes have been warmly welcomed.
The order changes the tax treatment of new charity annexes to an existing building. Currently, when a new annexe is built for non-business charity purposes which is detached from any other building and can function independently of that building, the construction is zero-rated for VAT purposes. Alternatively, if the annexe is built adjacent to the original building and connected by doors or corridors, the construction is deemed to be work to an existing building and is taxed. Effectively, the change of law will ignore the connecting door or corridor and apply the same tax treatment to both types of annexes. It is not, however, intended to give tax-free treatment to enlargements or extensions to charity buildings.
The order also addresses a particular difficulty that tribunals have experienced in deciding whether an existing building remained following dereliction or part demolition. If there was a building, the work to it was taxable, but if the tribunal decided that no building remained, the new building could be zero rated.
There is no definition in law and tribunals have tried to rely on the facts of each case and their perception of the final building. The order gives a legal definition of when a building ceases to be an existing building. The original draft, published last July, required a clear site to be left following demolition. Following representations received from the industry, the order now allows one facade, or, on a corner site, two facades, to be retained if they are required by local planning permission.
Because of the new rules on conversions, the bulk of the problem has been resolved. The effect of the change is, therefore, limited to work to existing dwellings. In the past VAT tribunals have been persuaded that zero rating is proper for the creation of a new house by, for example, incorporating a small house into a much larger one. That will no longer be possible and, generally, any work of whatever degree to an existing dwelling will be taxable.
The second order deals with protected or, to use a more common term, listed buildings. A new order is necessary as this group has always reflected the main conditions contained in the construction group that I have just discussed. In addition, two changes have been made. Religious bodies that wish to alter a listed building are exempt from planning permission provided that they set up internal procedures that satisfy the Department of National Heritage. Other denominations must seek normal listed building approval from the local planning authorities. The order incorporates recent changes in this ecclesiastical exemption.
The order clarifies the definition of approved alterations to a listed building. It has always been the case that repairs are taxable but that alterations are zero-rated. Some hon. Members will recall that when Chancellor Lawson abolished zero rating for alterations to most buildings in 1984, the House was persuaded that listed buildings should retain such zero rating. The borderline has always been difficult. Tax advisers increasingly claim that all work that changes the fabric of a building to any minute degree is an alteration, provided that it has been approved by the local authority.
Some confusion now reigns because some VAT tribunal chairman have agreed with that argument while others have not. I can give the House a few examples of the difficulties caused. When a thatched roof is replaced with one of a different reed, it has been claimed that the new type of reed alters the roof rather than repairs it. In another case, the replacement of a leaky flat roof covered by a single lead sheet with a sectional roof using modern methods was claimed to be an alteration rather than a repair. An even more bizarre example is where the chemical impregnation of a wall for damp-proofing purposes, which changed the molecular structure of the bricks, was claimed to be an alteration not a repair and was therefore eligible for different VAT treatment.
I have mentioned the tax-free new house and the need to tax some of the contents such as fridges, carpets and so on. The input tax order closes a tax loophole whereby

a procedure has been devised by tax advisers to allow commercial nursing homes in the private sector to acquire all their fixtures and fittings tax-free. I am sure that removing that avoidance device will excite little controversy in the House.
The first three orders form a package of measures that have been widely welcomed by the industry. In addition to significant new concessions, a general tidying-up exercise has resulted in considerable simplification and greater clarity of the law, which will be most helpful to the industry and administrators and will reduce costs on both sides. Contentious and costly litigation to tribunals and the courts will certainly be reduced.
The Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order results from a consultation undertaken by Customs with businesses and professional advisers to see how the VAT treatment of commercial property transactions could be simplified. The order makes significant changes, which will be welcomed by businesses large and small. It is deregulatory and will cause pages of complex legislation to disappear.
I shall set out what the order seeks to achieve. In a sentence, the order makes simpler and more flexible the election to waive exemption, which is sometimes called the option to tax, and abolishes the self-supply of commercial property. The option to tax is a relieving measure. By allowing landlords to choose to tax supplies of their property, it permits recovery of input tax that could not otherwise be reclaimed.
First, existing provisions do not allow the cancellation of an option. The order assists those who opt to tax in haste and those who, in the fullness of time, wish to change their minds. It will allow withdrawal of an option to tax within three months, if it has not been put into practical effect, and cancellation in any case after 20 years subject to Customs' permission.
Secondly, the order offers businesses more discretion in determining the scope of their option. Currently, an option automatically covers most groups of buildings and entire estates. From 1 March 1995, businesses will be able to tax more selectively so that, for example, each building at a business park and discrete areas of agricultural land can be separately taxed.
I have decided to discontinue the complicated special rules for determining how much tax is due when an option to tax is first made. The normal rules will now apply. I also propose that an option can no longer be used to tax the pitch rent for a residential caravan, or the mooring fee for a residential houseboat, and to put those charges on the same footing as the ground rent for an ordinary dwelling.
Turning to the self-supply provisions briefly, the existing provisions require businesses making exempt supplies of, for instance, finance, insurance, health or education, to pay VAT to customs on the full cost of any building that they construct themselves. Usually that tax can be recovered only in part. The vast majority of responses to the Customs consultation asked for the abolition of those provisions and I have decided to abolish them altogether for any developments starting on or after 1 March 1995. Transitional provisions for existing buildings and those still under construction will continue until 1 March 1997. Those will protect in particular people who pointed out that they had secured funding for developments currently in progress on the basis of the existing rules.
The order greatly simplifies a difficult area of the tax within a framework that gives businesses the greatest possible choice. It abolishes a complicated and generally unpopular measure. The result is less regulation and greater flexibility for businesses, and I commend the order to the House.
Finally, I turn to the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Amendment) Order. The existing payments on account scheme requires the largest VAT payers to make payments by monthly instalments of their VAT liability. The scheme was originally introduced to prevent an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement as a result of changes necessitated by the United Kingdom's entry into the single market. To maintain the PSBR position, it is necessary for the scheme to continue.
The order updates the 1993 payments on account order so that entry to the scheme and the amounts payable for 1995–96 are determined by the tax liability in the year 1993–94 rather than 1992–93. It also provides that, in future, the scheme will roll forward automatically on an annual basis, thus removing the need to lay fresh statutory instruments before the House each year to update the scheme.
In July last year, the Chancellor announced that the scheme would be aligned with the fiscal year so that businesses could start making payments on account for VAT periods beginning in April, May and June of each year rather than October, November and December. To effect that change, the current scheme was allowed to run for a further six months—to March this year-rather than being updated as previously. The Chancellor also announced that, when the scheme was next updated, the order would be amended to provide that future updates of the scheme would happen automatically each year. That would remove the need to lay fresh statutory instruments before the House.
The Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Amendment) Order 1995 gives effect to the two changes, and I commend the order to the House.

Ms Dawn Primarolo: As the House will have realised from the Paymaster General's speech, the series of five VAT orders is highly complex. Understanding the orders—particularly their impact on the building industry and housing market—is akin to trying to wade through treacle, but there are specific issues that we wish to raise involving the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings) Order 1995. As the Paymaster General said, the orders result from tribunal cases, appeals and legal action, which can be fraught.
I specifically wish to refer to the impact of the orders on public sector housing. The homeless or destitute are not frequently seen at VAT tribunals appealing against the impact of the legislation on their rent levels—they are not seen at such tribunals at all. I want to explain why we believe that the construction of buildings order is detrimental to housing associations and why the Government, in trying to resolve one set of anomalies, have created another. I know that Customs and Excise officials have worked hard on the orders and have done their best to take on a range of issues, but we are not satisfied on several points and we shall oppose the order for those reasons.
To demonstrate the impact on public sector housing it is important to stress a number of points. Public sector housing is made of two sorts of housing: local authority housing stock and housing association housing stock. Their relationship is important and it is being drawn more tightly by the Government's housing policy, which enforces the transfer from local authorities to housing associations of the management of that stock.
Local authority housing stock is declining because it is being sold off through the right-to-buy scheme. Almost no new building is taking place in that sector. Housing associations account for 25 per cent. of all new dwellings in the UK and are developed partly through public funds, through the Housing Corporation, and partly through private finance. There are two sorts of housing association and the order affects them in different ways. There are those that are registered with the Housing Corporation under charitable rules and those that are registered under Housing Corporation rules as industrial and provident societies.
Housing associations are competitive, but their ethos is to help other housing associations, which are known as embryonic housing associations—social housing that cannot initially secure the finance needed to develop premises. The embryonic housing association piggy-backs on the larger housing association in order to secure the private finance that it needs. It is that relationship which is in danger of being undermined and damaged by the order if it is passed today.
Housing associations' core income is exempt from value added tax, which means that they cannot claim VAT on input costs. Housing associations suffer VAT on repairs, maintenance, major refurbishment and professional fees for developing new dwellings. That is a consequence of the VAT orders, and the same is not true for local authorities, which are excluded. That consequence has a detrimental affect on housing rent.
In future, housing associations are expected to take on local authority stock as local authorities are expected to divest themselves of that stock. There will be an increasing role for housing associations. The movement has two distinct ways of trying to deal with the VAT environment and how it places its contracts.
Housing associations are expected to cope with a VAT environment in which they are considered to be in the mainstream of VAT law. There are certain unique legislative concessions to their status. Because they are in the main stream, they are considered as businesses—the activity of collecting rental income from their tenants is their business. Their core income is exempt. Housing associations thus suffer from VAT. The ones that are VAT registered because of activities ancillary to their core income may claim credit or recover the tax only on costs associated directly or indirectly with generating that taxed income.
I do not want to go into too much detail about the specific provisions of the order. I want to show its impact and give some examples of how it could undermine new developments in housing associations.
Because of various factors, housing associations find that speculatively built housing is unsuitable for their tenants. Invariably, they are not converting a country barn into a country residence or worrying about different sorts of roofing but considering specific designs to meet the constraints of sites—which frequently involve


difficulties—or to meet the specific needs of, for example, disabled people or people with special needs. Although housing associations develop some green-field sites, most developments are in urban areas, and carry difficulties. Professional fees and on costs can amount to 10 per cent. of the development cost.
The housing associations' traditional approach has been to opt for two sorts of building contracts. The first is the traditional contract, whereby one set of providers supplies professional services and a second set of providers undertakes the building work. That building work is zero-rated, but value added tax is imposed on professional services. The second type of contract is the design and build contract. Housing associations opt for a specific company which can provide all the professional and building services, and in that way the VAT can be absorbed.
However, that distorts the housing construction market because only contractors who can fulfil both functions can tender for the contracts. At a time when the Government and the Opposition want to see expansion of the construction sector, it is remiss of the Government to introduce an anomaly which will lock out a section of the building industry.
The legislation affects major interest for leases and will thus have a detrimental effect on housing associations. A "major interest" for leases is considered to be a period of 21 years or more. By granting a long lease, the developer of a dwelling can apply for a zero rate of VAT on the first rental payment, which allows all the VAT that is paid on professional fees to be recovered.
However, housing associations come under the control of the Housing Corporation and its rules prevent the granting of a major interest lease, except for shared ownership and right to buy. Therefore, housing associations that have assured and secured tenancies are exempt from VAT because of their short leaseholds. There is an obvious way around that problem, but the Government choose not to see it.
It is accepted that the current legislation is weak, and its interpretation has been stretched by various VAT tribunal decisions. However, the zero rating of dwellings has resulted in lower rental charges, and anything that disturbs or undermines that situation is clearly undesirable. By changing the legislation in effect to reverse tribunal decisions, which in many instances have provided the relief that the housing associations need, the Government are inadvertently damaging those associations. The strict interpretation of the new legislation could prohibit zero rating because the raft extends above ground level. That concerns the development and conversion of buildings as well as their rehabilitation.
The effect of the VAT rules—particularly those in the building and construction order—will mean that, although local authorities could recover VAT, they are prohibited from raising the finance to redevelop their properties and they are expected to transfer some of their properties to housing associations. However, housing associations could be inhibited in developing that stock because the private lender will he concerned that, as a result of the additional VAT imposed on refurbishment, the level of rent that would need to be charged could make the property unviable.
The legislation also inserts the word "first" in item 1, which means that the first tranche payment for the freehold sales will be exempt from VAT, allowing no VAT recovery. In Scotland, the law prohibits the granting of a longer lease for a residential building. Therefore, the shared ownership developments in Scotland will not be able to recover VAT incurred on the initial development, while their English equivalents can. That seems to be an unnecessary provision.
There are other instances where housing associations recover dwellings from long-lease holders as a contractual obligation. Those dwellings are then let on a further long lease and currently all the grants of long leases are zero-rated. In future, only the first will be zero-rated and the resultant cost could be as much as £400 per dwelling in irrecoverable VAT.
I have already explained the detrimental effect that the legislation could have on embryonic housing associations. The process involves a lead housing association taking on the development of property—the purchase of the land and the building of the dwellings—and then allowing the smaller housing association to manage that activity. The ownership is finally transferred to the smaller housing association when it is able to raise the necessary finance. The order will require VAT to be passed on in the cost to the embryonic associations, which, in turn, would push up their costs.
The question of homelessness and the role of housing associations as well as local authorities should be important to all hon. Members in the House. We regret that the Government are able to damage an already very fragile relationship through complex VAT legislation and, unfortunately, we believe that that is what the order does.
The concept of VAT seems to be flawed in the Value Added Tax (Protected Buildings) Order also. The order is specifically aimed at buildings of national heritage significance and it requires that relief be geared at alteration rather than preservation. The concept of that section of VAT law seeks to encourage the alteration of our national heritage buildings in order to claim back VAT, rather than maintain them through repairs.
The problem is that the zero-rating relief extends only to alterations. That is an historic problem and it is difficult to see how it could be solved. I am sure that many hon. Members have been lobbied recently by bishops, church wardens and others associated with the church about the terrible burden of paying VAT on repairs and maintenance. That measure has skewed access to our national heritage as many churches and cathedrals have now established an entry payment. The money is not collected particularly rigorously, but establishing the structure to collect it enables the churches to try to offset and reclaim some of their VAT payments.
I ask the Paymaster General to re-examine that issue because we are out of line with our European partners who protect their national heritage. It seems ridiculous that we seek to protect our national heritage by encouraging people to alter it.
In conclusion, the orders presented today—particularly the construction order—will damage housing associations, whether they are registered under charitable rules or not, and they could lead to higher rental charges. The Government have dressed them up as a series of technical changes, and technical changes are included in the orders as well. However, we intend to oppose the Value Added


Tax (Construction of Buildings) Order because we believe that nothing should be allowed to undermine our crusade to tackle the scourge of homelessness and poor housing in our society. By undermining housing associations, the Government make our task more difficult.

Mr. Barry Field: May I first declare an interest that is not in the Register of Members' Interests? I live and have my constituency office in a listed building or, as Treasury-speak would have it, a protected building. I must say that, when the tide comes over our garden wall and the wind is in the north—the building sways with it—it feels extraordinarily like an unprotected building to me. I would prefer that the term "listed building" be used.
My hon. Friend the Paymaster General and I have been in correspondence about the anomalies to which the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) referred. There appears to be a tax incentive to alter a listed building, rather than to preserve it. The most celebrated case of that recently was when His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh berated the local authority on the Isle of Wight for taking the Royal Yacht Squadron to task for fitting plastic windows into a listed building.
The extraordinary anomaly is that the Royal Yacht Squadron could recover the VAT for fitting the plastic windows because it was an alteration to a listed building, but it cannot—like many of us who occupy listed buildings—get any help with the additional costs of maintaining a part of our nation's heritage.
In correspondence, my hon. Friend prays in aid to me the fact that EC rules do not allow for an alteration to VAT once we have departed as a nation from the zero rate. He will recall the exchanges we had on Second Reading of the Finance Bill. I am sure he appreciates that I fully understand that rule.
The question about this order is whether he has actually tested that position with the EC. Has he suggested to the EC that, while we understand the rule that there should be no return, there could be a substitution? In the case to which I am referring, it would make so much more sense to substitute VAT relief for the maintenance of a protected building rather than for its alteration, for reasons which I am sure the House is aware of. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to answer that point when he winds up.
I shall now transfer my attention to order No. 279 which, as my hon. Friend indicated, is known as the option to tax. The proposal is to retain the option as applying to buildings and all subsequent supplies, while introducing an ability to revoke the option after 20 years. The British Property Federation has sought to apply the option to individual supplies of a building, effectively at lease level. Revocation would automatically occur on expiry of the lease. The BPF also seeks revocation after ten years where the lease term is greater.
There have in the past been significant problems in defining the extent of a building for the purpose of the option, particularly in the context of complexes of buildings. The current proposals perpetuate the problems, although an attempt has been made to clarify the definition of a complex. It is the BPF's view that the new proposals will not simplify matters at all, since Customs has had great difficulty in drafting the new rules and litigation likely to be necessary to define them.
The BPF put forward proposals—echoed by many commentators in the property world—for an option at lease level, as it would entirely remove this area of uncertainty, while at the same time offering the property industry far greater flexibility to negotiate lease terms freely according to economic factors such as the tenants' ability to recover VAT, as happens successfully elsewhere in the EC.
The Minister's response to the proposal has been that it would be almost impossible to police. The BPF does not share that view. The necessary calculations to apportion input tax for buildings with mixed taxable and exempt supplies are already carried out for buildings of mixed commercial and non-commercial use, so many taxpayers and VAT control officers will be familiar with them.
Furthermore, Customs has expressed concern that smaller taxpayers will not be able to cope with such arrangements. The BPF points out that the taxpayer could opt for all his supplies of a building if he considered a mixture too complicated or could not otherwise satisfy Customs' requirements. The change to an option at lease level could be introduced in a way which took gradual effect as leases expired or new leases were granted.
Finally, the Minister's argument that revenue will suffer is—in the BPF's view—unfounded, since as many taxpayers are likely to opt in the knowledge that it would not bind them permanently as will de-opt. The 20-year revocation period currently offered will not take effect until the year 2009, and will therefore be of no practical value for many years to come. The BPF suggested a 10-year period would still not have immediate effect, but would allow scope for planning to meet changing economic circumstances in the shorter term.
The reason for refusing the 10-year period has been the fear of avoidance schemes which have been experienced by some EC members, principally where a lease—which must be negotiated between the parties at arm's length—provides no significant rent flowing until after the expiry of an initial ten-year option period, thus permitting the recovery of substantial input tax, while attracting minimal output tax.
The BPF's view is that the capital goods scheme contained in the general regulations enacted in accordance with article 20 of the EC's sixth directive which provides for input tax adjustments according to supplies made up to ten years after incurring the input tax affords protection for Customs.
In addition, the new orders propose that consent for revocation would have to be obtained through Customs (Article 4 (b) (5) (c)). Therefore, in cases of perceived avoidance, Customs could withhold its consent and the revenue would effectively be protected. My hon. Friend sees the orders as a measure of deregulation. I have to say to him that, having recently had personal experienced of this particular VAT minefield, I believe the proposals will almost inevitably have the opposite effect.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) said that dealing with the orders was like wading through treacle, and I congratulate her on her perseverance. She highlighted a number of concerns, and there are one or two others which I wish to touch on.
It was also interesting to hear the comment of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) about the fact that the order has been introduced as a form of deregulation. It would appear to be a difficult nettle to grasp, because, as soon as Ministers bring in variations, they are in danger of creating other anomalies and confusions and altering the balance, which would not be their intention.
Unfortunately, these are statutory instruments which are not amendable, which is the reason why—if we are dissatisfied with any of them—we are forced to vote against the whole instrument in an attempt to persuade the Government to come back with some revised thinking.
There are one or two questions which I would like to address to the Minister which might help to clarify the situation. It has been suggested that housing associations could be disadvantaged by the measure, because they will transfer from being exempt to zero rating, and consequently will be unable to reclaim VAT.
If that is the case, the first problem which arises is that housing associations are funded from the taxpayer. I hope that the Government acknowledge that it does not make a lot of sense to give those associations money from the taxpayer and then put them in a position where they have to pay, in effect, excess tax, in as much as they will be unable to recover what they otherwise would have done.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In order to stop this point gathering momentum and being based on a wrong premise, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the position of housing associations will improve as a result of these orders. They will be able to zero-rate conversions—that is not open to them now—and in no other way will their tax position deteriorate. So if the hon. Gentleman opposes this collection of orders, he must explain to the housing associations precisely why he feels that they are being disadvantaged.

Mr. Bruce: I am grateful to the Minister. If his assurance means that housing associations will in all circumstances be better off under the order, I obviously welcome that.
In my constituency, there is an old mill, which, in spite of several attempts to revive it, is on its last legs and no longer producing. All the signs are that it is likely to be acquired by a housing association and converted to use as residential accommodation—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight) suggests that I am discussing Scotland, and that Scottish law on long-term tenure differs from English law. Can the Minister assure me that a housing association seeking to develop the mill will qualify for zero rating and thus be able to claim full relief? That would be a welcome assurance.
Three hundred yards away the said mill is another empty building in the same town. It has been derelict for many years, and there is a wish to convert it to a day care centre for the elderly. I am sure that all hon. Members who take an interest have received a briefing from the Charities Tax Reform Group—I am sure that the Minister is aware of it—in which the group says that the exclusion of conversions of commercial buildings to non-residential relevant charitable use represents an unfair anomaly. One can only wonder why the Government have decided to implement it.
Across the country, conversions of old buildings to new dwellings or for community purposes are to be actively encouraged. They reinvigorate derelict sites and provide many benefits to the community—laudable activities which are at all times to be encouraged. In response to an earlier intervention the Minister seemed to confirm that such conversions will be at a disadvantage.
I claim no expertise in this area. I have read the orders, but without knowing all the details of the background law, it is difficult to understand what they are getting at. Hence I rely on the people most directly affected to communicate their views to Members of this House—and they say that the order creates an unfair anomaly.
I ask the Minister to respond to these concerns at the end of the debate. Why should not such conversions benefit; why cannot the Government extend to them the benefits that the order entails? If the Minister cannot give me a satisfactory answer, it will be quite legitimate to vote against the orders.
The difficulty we always face with such instruments is that they are to be taken as a whole. It is quite legitimate to vote against them this evening, not because we disagree with the tidying-up measures and extensions in them, but because we say that they have not satisfactorily dealt with an anomaly, which I have described. The Government should go away and come back with improved orders, or at least assure us that another instrument may be in the offing to deal with the problem. That seems entirely reasonable.
My last point relates to listed buildings. The Minister touched on certain anomalies that have resulted from VAT tribunal findings, to the effect that certain building works that most people would regard as repairs have been treated as alterations. When people repair old buildings, they will inevitably consider whether that can be done in a manner that is in character with what is already there, while improving on the old materials. Obviously, they consider whether the improvements will be in keeping with the old appearance. Suggesting that, in so doing, they should fail to qualify for relief seems to me to be applying the rules too strictly.
Much more seriously, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said, this may act as a positive encouragement not to preserve our heritage and to change it simply in order to qualify for VAT relief. The Government cannot really believe that to be sensible or desirable.
It should not be too difficult to give directions to Customs and Excise officers or VAT officers, making it clear that there are reasonable boundaries. The point is that VAT relief for listed buildings should be designed to ensure that they are properly repaired, in character, not to encourage people to alter buildings' character simply to qualify for tax benefits. That clearly pushes in the wrong direction, and creates an unnecessary tension in the tax system, which the Government should remove.
I know that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall curtail my remarks. I hope that the Minister will answer my questions, and that he will understand that, if we vote against the orders, it will not be because of an objection to their fundamental reforms; it will be because some important points have not been dealt with.

.35 pm

Mr. William O'Brien: Most of the points about the orders were fully ventilated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), who dealt particularly with housing matters. I shall therefore not go over them again.
Earlier I intervened on the Minister to make a point about the effect that the first order will have on charitable organisations. It is difficult to understand the Government's reasoning. They allow VAT to be disregarded when converting a derelict dwelling to a house or residential dwelling, but they deny the same concession to charitable organisations that want to convert derelict dwellings to day centres for the elderly, the disabled, the young disabled or the chronically sick.
Many of those organisations work to provide respite care for the less fortunate people in our community. Most of them do the work voluntarily, thus helping health authorities and social services departments. Yet the Minister tells us tonight that these charitable organisations will receive no assistance under the order in the form of relief from VAT. I consider that shameful.
We have no chance of amending the orders: they are a case of all or nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South correctly said—outlining the complications in this bunch of orders—that because of the unfairness of the first order we have no option but to vote against them. Had more Conservative Members been here to hear the Minister say that charitable organisations will receive no assistance for converting derelict dwellings to day centres, I assume that they too would have voted against the orders.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South also discussed large-scale repairs to church buildings and to historic buildings owned by local authorities, churches and other charitable organisations. Those who wish to repair and maintain historic buildings such as churches and cathedrals will face the imposition of value added tax at 17.5 per cent. In general, it is the community that cares for such buildings and promotes improvements. The Minister is saying that there will be no concession when repairs and improvements are undertaken.
I have corresponded with the Treasury on behalf of the Bishop of Wakefield, who has made representations in the past. It is disappointing to hear the Minister reiterate his opposition to my arguments.
My concern is heightened by the Minister saying that the Government do not intend to assist charitable organisations, churches and religious organisations in the maintenance and conversion of buildings that would be to the benefit of the community generally.
If the Minister cannot give any assurances this evening, I hope that he will understand that we are saying that the orders do not help people who are in great need. Disabled and elderly people will suffer because the Government are not prepared to give any serious consideration to their needs.
As my colleagues have said, we shall vote against the orders. I hope that in doing so we shall impress upon the Government the need to propose further orders to give relief to charitable organisations and religious organisations that are working hard to maintain communities and historic buildings while providing care and attention.

Mr. Nicholas Brown: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, relating to the

accountability of the Secretary of State for Health to the House. We debated health care on Monday and we spent all day yesterday on health care issues when debating the Health Authorities Bill on Report and on Third Reading. The Secretary of State spoke in both debates.
This afternoon, in answer to a written question, the right hon. Lady has announced a rise in prescription charges of three times the rate of inflation. She could not possibly have made the decision this morning. She must have known about it on Monday and she certainly must have known about it on Tuesday, yet she did not share the information with the House. Perhaps you, Madam Deputy Speaker, will advise me whether the Secretary of State has sought to make a statement on this important matter. Perhaps you will also advise me on whether it was treating the House with due and proper respect for the right hon. Lady to have withheld a statement from us yesterday.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to dictate to members of the Government or any hon. Member what they should or should not say to the House. I gather that the announcement has been made in the form of a written answer, which is a well-precedented method of providing information to the House. There are Ministers on the Treasury Bench, and I have no doubt that they will convey the views of the House to the Secretary of State for Health. I am sure that there will be other ways of dealing with the matter. I am confident that hon. Members will try to find apposite ways in which to raise it properly. We cannot do more now.

Mr. David Evans: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point of order?

Mr. Evans: Yes. Would you agree, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is a bit rich for Opposition Members to talk about prescription charges when it was a Labour Government who introduced them in the first place?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Ian McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it on the same point?

Mr. McCartney: Yes; it is a genuine point of order.
When I was a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team with responsibilities for health, the issue before us was raised on a point of order last year. I remember that a ruling was given by Madam Speaker on the way in which such information should be released. Until last year, there was a precedent that information about increased prescription charges was not released in the form of a written answer. Following Madam Speaker's ruling, I believe that the Secretary of State for Health made a statement. Perhaps a check should be made to ascertain whether Madam Speaker's ruling has been broken by the Secretary of State's written answer.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not aware that any rule has been broken. However, in the light of the hon. Member's remarks, I shall have the matter checked.

Mr. McCartney: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have spoken from my recollection. If I have misled you, I apologise in advance. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for taking up a serious and important matter.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Let us continue with the debate.

Mr. Clive Betts: I shall take up the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench about housing associations. There is concern given the current climate. For example, only 500 local authority homes were built last year. The number of people on the housing waiting list in my constituency is rising all the time. They are waiting for homes to rent because they cannot afford to buy as the economy stands. In reality, their only hope is to look to housing associations, of which there are many in my constituency. The associations wish to develop new homes or substantially to improve existing properties.
Only yesterday, the Committee considering the Finance Bill discussed Government policy, which sometimes, inadvertently, can have a detrimental effect on housing policies. We discussed rather complex matters, which included qualified indexed securities and how the withdrawing of the tax advantages that those securities enjoy could lead to additional costs for housing associations. There is a real financial problem for the associations. The reduction of housing association grant towards the costs of development has put pressure on the associations. The Government probably intended that to happen. They want the associations to go into the private sector to raise money.
The additional costs that have to be borne by housing associations in raising more private sector finance have forced up rents to a point where the Government are becoming worried about the benefits that they are having to pay tenants. A poverty trap is developing. People can enter housing association properties as tenants only if they are on benefit or they can afford to pay high rents of £70 or more that the associations have to charge. Any measure that causes extra costs to fall upon the associations will ultimately bear upon their tenants.
If the tenants are on benefit, they can pass the costs back to the Government, which means that the Government will not save anything. At the same time, some people who are not on benefit will not be able to pay increased rents. Our concern is whether housing associations will incur additional costs because of these orders and, if so, whether the Government understand what those costs are. If the Government accept that the costs exist—associations have given me evidence that they do—are they prepared to reconsider the matter rather than simply continue with orders that could have a considerable impact?
I received a letter from Northern Counties Housing Association Ltd., which is very active in the Sheffield area. It provides a number of high-quality homes, from which my constituents and many others in the north benefit. It says that, having assessed its development programme, this year some £5 million of the programme will be affected by the order, which comes into effect on

1 March 1995. It concluded that, for a full development year, the order would cost it between £750,000 and £1 million.
I am not sure whether the Paymaster General heard those figures or whether he is otherwise engaged on the Front Bench, so I shall repeat them for his benefit. Northern Counties Housing Association Ltd. says that the impact of the order on its finances will be £750,000 to £1 million a year in extra VAT, which it will have to pay. That is its own assessment of the complications of the order. The Minister must respond to that issue, because if that housing association is affected, I cannot believe that other associations will not have similar problems.
Embryonic associations are, by their very nature, small. Many of them are just starting and they will not necessarily have people with the accountancy skills and expertise to interpret the orders to determine precisely the VAT impact for their own accounts. No doubt, once they begin to recognise the effect of the orders, the information given to us by Northern Counties will come through from the other associations and will show the costs, which will fall not only on the associations but their tenants. Those costs will restrict some people becoming housing association tenants in new properties.

Mr. McCartney: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise to hon. Members on both sides of the House and to you personally, but it is related to the point of order that I raised earlier. I have been to the Library, to assist the House, and have obtained a copy of the ruling that was made by Madam Speaker, in relation to a matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett).
Madam Speaker issued quite a stern warning and made it clear how she expected the matter to be dealt with in future. Madam Speaker had this to say:
The written answer given yesterday, which is in columns 95 and 96 of Hansard, is concerned almost entirely with the proposed level of prescription charges for the year 1993–94, and is described as 'pursuant to' an answer of 15 February to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), which is at column 162.
I have noted that the Select Committee on Procedure, in its third report of Session 1990–91, stated its belief that
'the use by Ministers of "pursuant" answers is inherently undesirable.'
The report goes on to say:
'The offence is compounded when … an answer is given which claims to be "pursuant" to an earlier reply but which in fact has only the most tenuous link with it.'
As we well know, the House has not had the opportunity to debate the Procedure Committee's recommendations on how the practice should be dealt with. But I wish to make it clear that I deprecate the use of the 'pursuant' device by Ministers to make written statements such as this without giving proper notice to the House. I hope that that clears up the points of order, and that we can now get on with our business."—[Official Report, 3 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 301–302.]
Madam Speaker made it clear how she wished matters to be dealt with in future. I hope that that is helpful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the House. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Health will now come to the


House—the business could be rearranged—and make an appropriate statement to my hon. Friend who raised the original point of order.

Madam Deputy Speaker: As I just explained to the hon. Gentleman, I am causing my own inquiries to be made. I would not wish to make any further point on the matter at the moment.

Mr. Betts: The point that I am making on behalf of the housing associations is that there appears to have been a change of practice. Housing associations fear that work that they had carried out that was previously zero-rated will now not he zero-rated because it is not covered by the order. I would like the Minister to respond to that.
He seemed to be saying earlier, when justifying the order, that there have been examples in the private sector of people trying to claim that different reeds on thatched cottages meant that the property was being converted. Anyone can reach the rational judgment that that is not so. I presume that more substantial conversion works that have been carried out by housing associations have been zero-rated in the past but will not be in future as result of the orders. In an attempt to clear up one or two obvious anomalies, it appears that the Government are changing the approach, which will have an effect on genuine conversion works and mean they will he subject to VAT at the full rate in future.
No doubt the Minister will tell us that these matters must be consistent with practice in the rest of the European Union, that the Commission will take a dim view of it or that the European Court will pass judgment if the Government act in any other way. I remind the Minister that, when the European Court looked into UK policy in 1985, it ruled that the Government's stated policy of facilitating wider home ownership was a legitimate social goal. It did not in any way challenge the zero-rating and relief on new buildings to be used for domestic, relevant residential or relevant charitable purposes. The Government probably have more room to manoeuvre in that area than they have so far led us to believe.
I do not want to give the impression that zero-rating of conversions of non-residential properties to residential properties is opposed by the Opposition. There are many derelict ex-industrial and commercial properties that can be converted for residential purposes, and we support zero-rating of those conversions to encourage that process. I would argue, however, that, in many parts of the country, there are simply no such old industrial and commercial properties. They may be prevalent in the old textile areas, but they certainly are not in steel areas like my own, where ex-steel buildings were often little more than tin sheds, which certainly cannot be converted in any meaningful way.
The conversion work that takes place in my area tends to be of residential rather than commercial buildings and therefore would be subject to VAT at the full rate. I ask the Minister to reflect on that, because it seems that zero-rating might simply encourage people who convert barns into luxury homes rather than provide for the needs of people who need rented accommodation in our city areas.
I now deal with the issue of piggy-backing of embryonic associations and the point about leases, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South. It is a serious point; it could stop that practice. It is the only way in which many small associations can get

started, and I hope that the Minister will give it further thought. We cannot amend the orders, but at a later date the Minister could table some proposals to deal with that.
The order could lead to a nonsensical position. Options are open to local authorities to deal with rundown stock. I can think of one estate in my constituency that has now been renovated, but where difficult choices would he posed by the order. It is an estate of old maisonette blocks, and a number of options could be available. If the local authority had the money, it could choose simply to repair those properties and put in new central heating schemes and new windows, in which case it would not pay VAT. It could top the maisonettes and convert them into single-storey houses—that process is quite common now—and that would not be subject to VAT. It could raze the properties to the ground and build on the concrete bases, which would not be subject to VAT. It could demolish them completely and start again and build new homes, if it had the resources, which would not be subject to VAT.
If, however—this has happened—it wants to do a deal to raise money and sell some of the properties to a housing association and use the proceeds of the sale to refurbish its own properties, the housing association then has a different range of choices. If it demolished the properties completely and builds new properties on separate sites around the overall site, VAT would not be payable. However, if it simply made repairs or did small jobs such as installing new central heating systems that would be subject to VAT.
If the housing association decided to take the top off maisonettes and convert them to single-storey properties, would such work be zero rated or subject to VAT at 17.5 per cent? If a housing association demolished properties completely and built homes on the concrete base that was left, would that be a conversion or a new build and would it be zero rated or subject to VAT at 17.5 per cent?
It appears that housing associations' choices will he conditioned and directed by the VAT regime into which the order introduces distinctions. I am not sure whether those distinctions are helpful. I am not sure whether they help the process of rational choice for housing associations. Some of those choices will now carry full VAT where previously they did not and that means extra cost for housing associations. Will the Minister assure every housing association in Britain that the order will not mean any extra costs for them? Many of them believe that the costs will be substantial and that rents will rise as a result.

6 pm

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) referred to repairs to protected or listed buildings. I should like to restate what I set out at the start of my remarks about the distinction between alterations and repairs with regard to such buildings.
In 1984, alterations to buildings generally were made subject to VAT, but at that time, the relief for alterations was retained for protected buildings. Hon. Members may regard that as an anomaly, although I do not think that during the course of the debate any hon. Member has called for the withdrawal of that zero rate.
If it is an anomaly, it is one that is valued by the heritage lobby and it is quite distinct from the question about whether repairs to all buildings, whether listed or


not, should be zero-rated. At the moment, they are all subject to VAT at the standard rate. Because of the sixth Council directive, we cannot introduce new zero rates. That directive was negotiated and agreed in 1977 by the Labour Government, so Opposition Members would not wish to disown that.
With regard to a possible reduced rate for repairs, we have no plans to introduce any reduced rates beyond that obtaining for domestic fuel and power. I, as Minister responsible, receive many requests for new reduced rates for all sorts of goods and services. Recently, we had such a request for energy-efficient goods and equipment.
We resist those, partly because of the expense and the revenue lost, which would simply have to be made up elsewhere by taxing other people at a higher rate, but also because any reduced rate creates new distinctions and borderlines, which creates scope for disputes and litigation. Therefore, in the interests of administrative simplicity, we shall stick with our system of standard rates and a zero rate.
We can introduce reduced rates only if they are on annexe H of the sixth Council directive. Repairs to churches and ecclesiastical buildings do not appear on that annexe. The matter is being reviewed, and the Commission was required to bring forward proposals for consideration by the Council of Ministers. The Commission has reported, and it is not recommending any substantial change to that list of permitted reduced rates. In any case, the reduction would require unanimity by the Council of Ministers, so it is extremely unlikely, given the facts that I have outlined, that a reduced rate for repairs, whether to all or only listed buildings, will be introduced.
I do not have much time to answer the debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight raised the question of the option to tax, which he thought should be extended to individual leases as well as to whole buildings. I may not be able to answer all his points, and he will forgive me if I write to him about the detail, but I can say that to do as he requests would introduce a new element of complexity into the system at a time when we are trying to deregulate.
These orders are deregulatory in intent, and if we were to try to permit the option to tax to apply to individual leases, complications would be created in a single building when some are taxed and some are not. For example, how would VAT be attributed to common services such as lift repairs or the repointing of brickwork? That would be complex and regulatory at a time when we are trying to move in the opposite direction.
My hon. Friend complained that the revocation of the option of 20 years was too long. We shall continue to review that, but I think that he would be generous enough to agree that to allow revocation at all is at least an important first step, and that is provided for in the order.
Several hon. Members referred to housing associations. I should say at the outset that the Housing Corporation is providing capital of about £1.2 billion a year for the next three years for housing associations, and that will also lever in about £550 million a year of private sector capital to promote housing association projects and enable them to go ahead.
The main point that I wish to make is that the orders give housing associations a new opportunity to take advantage of conversions for the first time. The new relief will help housing associations to convert non-residential dwellings into student accommodation, hospices, children's and old people's homes and so on.
There would be some dismay in the outside world if a party in the House were to vote against the orders, because this is a relieving provision which has been welcomed by the housing association movement. I frankly could not understand the reasoning of the official Opposition or individual Opposition Members in apparently opposing this relieving order.
It is true that small housing associations often use larger ones as agents to undertake large building or conversion projects, but they are not put at a disadvantage as regards VAT. Under the present law—this is carried forward in the new order in item 3 of the construction order—architects' and surveyors' fees are not recoverable—there is nothing new or unusual about that—but no additional liability arises as a result. There is no extra cost to housing associations here. I can give that assurance to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), who asked me about that. This is a relieving measure.
Housing associations are being given a giant new opportunity to help revive and regenerate in urban areas by the use of conversion. They can take rundown, non-domestic buildings, such as warehouses or mills, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) instanced, and turn them into dwellings, flats, or residential accommodation for the old or the sick.

Ms Primarolo: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I am trying to answer a point that she made.
It is a new opportunity for housing associations, and for the first time it will all be zero-rated. If the order is not passed this evening, housing associations will not be able to take advantage of those new opportunities.
To answer another point that was raised in the debate, it is true that, during the construction of dwellings, a certificate has to be issued by the housing association concerned, that in effect self-regulates the zero-rated status of the work in question. It is therefore a requirement that the housing association is registered with one of the national associations, of which there are four.
In practice, that creates no difficulty, but in view of the hon. Lady's interest in the matter and because we all want housing associations to succeed, I shall ask Customs and Excise to keep under review registration and the working of the new concessions.
As they are relieving measures that empower housing associations to undertake new work, it is obviously not our intention that there should be any problem in practice with the working out of the orders and we shall keep them under review. I assert with absolute confidence, however, that the housing association movement as a whole will benefit and would require some explanation if any hon. Members or parties were to oppose the measures in the House.
The last point was raised by the hon. Member for Normanton who—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER


proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of them, pursuant to order [17 February].

The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 254.

Division No. 82]
[6.11 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan, Alan


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dunn, Bob


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Durant, Sir Anthony


Arbuthnot, James
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Elletson, Harold


Ashby, David
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkins, Robert
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Faber, David


Baldry, Tony
Fabricant, Michael


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bates, Michael
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, Dudley


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forth, Eric


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Booth, Hartley
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Boswell, Tim
French, Douglas


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Fry, Sir Peter


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gallie, Phil


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gardiner, Sir George


Brandreth, Gyles
Garnier, Edward


Brazier, Julian
Gill, Christopher


Bright, Sir Graham
Gillan, Cheryl


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorst, Sir John


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Burt, Alistair
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butcher, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butler, Peter
Hague, William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Carttiss, Michael
Hannam, Sir John


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawkins, Nick


Clappison, James
Hawksley, Warren


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hayes, Jerry


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Heald, Oliver


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Coe, Sebastian
Hendry, Charles


Colvin, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Hicks, Robert


Conway, Derek
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Horam, John


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Devlin, Tim
Hunter, Andrew


Dicks, Terry
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jack, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dover, Den
Jenkin, Bernard





Jessel, Toby
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kirkhope, Timothy
Sackville, Tom


Knapman, Roger
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, Sir David
Shersby, Michael


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Sims, Roger


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Soames, Nicholas


Legg, Barry
Speed, Sir Keith


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Spicer, Michael


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lightbown, David
Sproat, Iain


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lord, Michael
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Stern, Michael


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stewart Allan


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Streeter, Gary


MacKay, Andrew
Sumberg David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sykes, John


Madel, Sir David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marlow, Tony
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)



Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mates, Michael
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Thurnham, Peter


Merchant, Piers
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mills, Iain
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Tredinnick, David


Moate, Sir Roger
Trend, Michael


Monro, Sir Hector
Trotter, Neville


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Neubert, Sir Michael
Viggers, Peter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Ward, John


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waterson, Nigel


Oppenheim, Phillip
Watts, John


Ottaway, Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Page, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Paice, James
Whittingdale, John


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Widdecombe, Ann


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Pawsey, James
Willetts, David


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wilshire, David


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Powell, William (Corby)
Yeo, Tim


Rathbone, Tim
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Redwood, Rt Hon John



Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tellers for the Ayes:


Richards, Rod
Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Bowen Wells.


Riddick, Graham







NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Ainger, Nick
Flynn, Paul


Ainsworlh, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Allen, Graham
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Alton, David
Foster, Don (Bath)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Foulkes, George


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Fraser, John


Armstrong, Hilary
Fyfe, Maria


Ashton, Joe
Galbraith, Sam


Austin-Walker, John
Galloway, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gapes, Mike


Barnes, Harry
George, Bruce


Battle, John
Gerrard, Neil


Bayley, Hugh
Godman, Dr Norman A


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Godsiff, Roger


Beggs, Roy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Berth, Rt Hon A J
Graham, Thomas


Bernn, Rt Hon Tony
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bennett, Andrew F
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Berry, Roger
Grocott, Bruce


Betts, Clive
Gunnell, John


Blunkett, David
Hain, Peter


Boyes, Roland
Hall, Mike


Bradley, Keith
Hanson, David


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Harvey, Nick


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Henderson, Doug


Burden, Richard
Heppell, John


Byers, Stephen
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Calaghan, Jim
Hodge, Margaret


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hoey, Kate


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Home Robertson, John


Caravan, Dennis
Hood, Jimmy


Cann, Jamie
Hoon, Geoffrey


Chidgey, David
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hoyle, Doug


Church, Judith
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chapham, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hutton, John


Clelland, David
Illsley, Eric


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Ingram, Adam


Coffey, Ann
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Corbett, Robin
Jamieson, David


Cousins, Jim
Janner, Greville


Cox, Tom
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Jowell, Tessa


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Keen, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Denham, John
Khabra, Piara S


Dewar, Donald
Kilfoyle, Peter


Dixon, Don
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dobson, Frank
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Donohoe, Brian H
Litherland, Robert


Dowd, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Llwyd, Elfyn


Eastham, Ken
Loyden, Eddie


Enright, Derek
Lynne, Ms Liz


Etherington, Bill
McAllion, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McCartney, Ian


Fatehett, Derek
Macdonald, Calum





McFall, John
Redmond, Martin


McKelvey, William
Reid, Dr John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Rendel, David


Maclennan, Robert
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


McNamara, Kevin
Rogers, Allan


MacShane, Denis
Rooker, Jeff


McWilliam, John
Rooney, Terry


Maddock, Diana
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mahon, Alice
Rowlands, Ted


Mandelson, Peter
Ruddock, Joan


Marek,Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Martin Michael J (Springburn)
Short, Clare


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Spellar, John


Milburn, Alan
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Miller, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Morley, Elliot
Straw, Jack


Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mudie, George
Timms, Stephen


Mullin, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Paul
Touhig, Don


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Turner, Dennis


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)


O'Hara, Edward
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Olner, Bill
Wallace, James


O'Neill, Martin
Walley, Joan


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Parry, Robert
Watson, Mike


Pearson, Ian
Welsh Andrew


Pendry, Tom



Pickthall, Colin
Wicks, Malcolm


Pike, Peter L
Wigley, Dafydd


Pope, Greg
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wise, Audrey


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Worthington, Tony


Primarolo, Dawn
Wray, Jimmy


Purchase, Ken
Wright, Dr Tony


Quin, Ms Joyce



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Noes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Joe Benton and Mrs. Barbara Roche.


Raynsford, Nick

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Construction of Buildings) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 280), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that, while this afternoon's statement about the future of Northern Ireland was being made, the Government announced that prescription charges would be raised. That was a deliberate sneaky venture on the Government's part, to hide a move that was reprehensible and highly


controversial. I wonder whether a Minister has been given an opportunity to make a statement announcing just what is involved in today's proposals.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was clearly not in the House when the matter was first raised.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that points of order were raised with you earlier about precedent. Are you now able to clarify the way in which such matters have been handled in the past, and can you also tell us whether the Secretary of State has expressed her intention to make a statement in the House? She spoke in the House on Monday—and, indeed, yesterday" although there was no need for her to take part in yesterday's debate, because she had not served on the Standing Committee—but apparently did not feel able to raise an issue resulting from a question that can only have been tabled yesterday.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I should deal with the points that have already been raised.
I have no knowledge of any intention to make a statement. No doubt Madam Speaker would be apprised of any such intention first in any event. As for the main issue that has been raised, I must tell hon. Members who have raised points of order in seeking a precedent that the present case is not on all fours with that precedent.
When the Speaker deplored a particular practice, that related to using a question that had already been answered and, at some later stage, giving information pursuant to that. That has not happened today. The question concerned was tabled straightforwardly; it is on the Order Paper, and was replied to by means of a written answer. Even if the present case had been on all fours with precedent, the fact remains that the Speaker—although she said that she deprecated it—did not rule it out of order; I gather that the matter is still being considered by the Procedure Committee.
I must therefore rule that what happened was perfectly in order, although hon. Members may not like that particular method of handling the provision of information.

Mrs. Beckett: Further to the point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not want to detain the House, but what worries Opposition Members particularly—apart from, as you say, the manner and the matter: a huge increase in prescription charges has been put through—is the fact that, although the question was tabled yesterday and it must have been known that it would be answered straight away, the House was not given the information.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must make it clear that the Chair is not responsible for the content of any Minister's speech, or indeed for the speech of any hon. Member.

Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I return to the question of precedent? Have any British Government ever raised prescription charges

by more than 2,500 per cent. without sending a Minister to the House to make a statement to try to justify such criminal taxation of the sick?

Ms Angela Eagle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I listened with interest to your explanation of the position relating to precedent. Is it not the case, however, that last year, when a rise in prescription charges was sneaked out in the way that Madam Speaker so deprecated, the Secretary of State for Health had to make a full statement in the House? Should she not do so again this week?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for the Chair to decide whether a Minister of the Crown should or should not make a statement. I understand, however, that this does not preclude the making of a statement.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does the Speaker not have some right to tell the Procedure Committee that it should report on the matter as soon as possible? There is clearly concern, and a feeling that the procedure now being used is increasingly becoming an abuse of the rights of hon. Members to ask questions about important issues.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I cannot answer for what Madam Speaker may or may not wish to do, but it is open to the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter directly with the Procedure Committee.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If prescriptions had gone up in line with inflation, they would now be 53p instead of £5.25. Is not it a discourtesy to the House and to yourself that the Secretary of State for Health has done this? Is not the decision a scandalous attack on the sick?

Mr. David Shaw: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. An important issue is involved here. It is possible that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health could help us, because we need to know that the standards that are being followed today were followed precisely by the Labour Government when they introduced prescription charges all those years ago. In 1976, they cut the hospital—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is clear that we are moving into a discussion of the merits or otherwise of the matter. That is not a matter on which I can rule, or on which I wish to take further points of order. I hope, therefore, that any further points of order will strictly relate to order and not to the merits or demerits of the decision.

Mr. Jeff Rooker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance only in relation to the order. The next business of the House involves two one-and-a-half-hour orders, so an obvious opportunity exists for business to be interrupted and for the Leader of the House or the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement later tonight.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for me.

Mr. Thomas Graham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just heard that the Secretary of State for Health


intends to put 15p on prescription charges. Many of our constituents can ill afford medicine at present. Surely it is in order for Back Benchers to debate such a measure.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am sure that the ingenuity of all Members will ensure that the matter is raised in various ways, but we cannot continue with the matter now. We must proceed with the next business.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Protected Buildings) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 283), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Amendment) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 281), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Buildings and Land) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 279), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th February, be approved.

Resolved,
That the Value Added Tax (Payments on Account) (Amendment) Order 1995 (S.I., 1995, No. 291), dated 8th February 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.

Avon (Structural Change)

The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): I beg to move,
That the draft Avon (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I convey to the House the decision of Madam Speaker to place a 10-minute limit on the speeches of Back Benchers. I am sure that she would also hope that Front-Bench spokesmen will not take too long either.

Mr. Curry: Apart from a few minor points, the order implements the Local Government Commission's recommendations for Avon. Its effect will be that, on 1 April 1996, Avon county council will disappear and its powers will be taken over by four unitary successor authorities. The existing authorities of Bristol and Woodspring will be given unitary powers. Woodspring is to be renamed North West Somerset. The existing authorities of Bath and Wansdyke will be abolished and comprise a single new unitary authority, to be called Bath and North East Somerset. The existing authorities of Kingswood and Northavon will also be abolished. They will comprise a further unitary authority to be called South Gloucestershire.
In the absence of clear agreement on alternative names for unitary authorities, we have concluded that we should not make any change to the names recommended by the commission. However, authorities retain the power to make changes to names if they resolve to do so. They may wish to consider that issue. There seems to be an increasing tendency—which I am not greatly in favour of—to give compass references to political names,
The order is not a judgment on the performance of the existing local authorities in the area. I made that clear during the Cleveland order debate and I make it clear now. That is not what the review was called on to judge. It involved finding the best form of local government for the future in each area.
In Avon, a generally constructive debate has taken place about reorganisation and the implementation of change. Of course, I have not agreed with every point put to me, but I have considered them all carefully and the debate has been conducted in a sensible and generally non-partisan way.
Authorities that are to assume unitary status should be given a fresh, democratic mandate to do so. There will therefore be whole council elections to all four unitary authorities in May this year. All four authorities will then have responsibility for planning and budgeting for change before they assume responsibility for the full range of local government functions on 1 April 1996.
In future, the three councils outside Bath will hold whole council elections every four years, although if local authorities wish to adopt a system of thirds, they may make representations. We do not hold any ideological view about which is preferable—we have always made that clear. Bristol will return to its current arrangements of elections by thirds from 1997. That follows Bristol's representations that it wished to remain elections by thirds


but that it did not wish to have an election in the year immediately after reorganisation. We have tried to accommodate what seems a sensible representation.
Warding arrangements for the two new authorities are as recommended by the commission, except for the correction of a technical error in South Gloucestershire. There are no changes to the current warding arrangements for Bristol and North West Somerset.
The commission also recommended the abolition of the county of Avon and its return to Somerset and Gloucestershire for ceremonial purposes. The order abolishes the county area of Avon and provides for Bristol to be a county in its own right, as it was before 1974, with its own lord lieutenancy and high sheriff.
As in the case of Cleveland, we shall be making separate provision to put into effect the commission's recommendations for ceremonial arrangements elsewhere in the present county of Avon. We shall therefore provide that, for ceremonial purposes, Bath and North East Somerset and North West Somerset will be part of Somerset and that South Gloucestershire will be part of Gloucestershire.
Once the order is made, all authorities in the area will have extra duties and powers to prepare for reorganisation. They will each be under a duty to co-operate in implementing change. Unitary authorities will have access to the information that they need. Once the new councils for the four unitary authorities have been elected, they will have further powers to make the necessary preparations, including setting budgets and recruiting staff for the functions that they take over on 1 April 1996. They will be required to consider whether any of their new functions would best be discharged through joint arrangements with other authorities. Taken together, those provisions will ensure that a smooth transition to the new structure takes place, with proper safeguards for essential services.
I am mindful of Madam Speaker's injunction for Front-Bench spokesmen to be brief, so I should like to deal quickly with some of the questions that have been raised during consultation. Where an existing authority, as a result of reorganisation, assumes responsibility for new functions but its area is unchanged, that is a continuing authority. We simply have no powers to abolish it. However, where a unitary authority has new boundaries, that authority is classified as a new authority. So Bristol and North West Somerset will be continuing authorities, and South Gloucestershire and Bath and North East Somerset will be new. It all sounds very theological but it is an important aspect of reorganisation.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Is the Minister aware of the anxiety of staff in, for example, a county authority, that they may not get a fair deal in applying for jobs in the new continuing authorities because, in effect, their existing staff are in a better position? The Minister said that he did not have the powers. I know that representations have been made for those powers to be taken.

Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman has noted, it has been argued that continuing authorities will have an advantage and that they will have the inside track on recruitment. It is argued that they can get the recruitment process under way now, before the new authorities come into existence. I do not agree. All the authorities will be able to start planning for the reorganisation once the order

is made. All four unitary authorities will get extra powers, for example, to make appointments once the elections have taken place, and the elections are scheduled for this May.
The existing authorities are being encouraged to think ahead on behalf of their successors. I could not stop them if I wanted to and it would be ridiculous to try. But that applies equally to continuing authorities such as Bristol, and authorities like Bath and Wansdyke, which are to be replaced by new ones. They cannot take decisions on behalf of their successors, but they can help, if they wish, to get them off to a proper start. There is nothing involved that sensible and honourable people cannot settle sensibly themselves. We have to make the assumption that we are dealing with sensible and honourable people in local government. I could not possibly justify placing artificial legal obstacles in the way of a sensible and well-planned transition from the old structure to the new.

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister will he well aware that the two new authorities that are not continuing authorities are concerned about the point that he is making. Can he clarify the issue? Will the new authorities that are continuing authorities be unable to make decisions in respect of new services that they take on—for example, education—and of staff recruitment and appointment until after the elections?

Mr. Curry: That is exactly the position. The order confers upon the new authorities—whether they be shadow authorities or the authorities that will discharge both the functions of the old councils and prepare for the new council—powers that will not be endowed until such time as those new councils are in existence. Of course, we want existing councils to do some preparatory work. The whole purpose of doing that now is that the uncertainty is ended as soon as possible. There is a clear legal break and the legal right is conferred by the order that establishes the new councils, which come into existence in May.

Ms Dawn Primarolo: I do not quite understand the distinction that the Minister is drawing between a preparatory plan and an actual plan and when the authorities can take over. Is he saying that, for example, Bristol should be taking no decisions whatsoever for the continuity of the services until after the election?

Mr. Curry: I am saying that there are two classes of authority. I said earlier that this all sounds very theological, whether the authority is new or continuing. However, it is a material consideration, not a theological one. We are bound by the terms of the statutes to which we have to refer.
If an authority is a continuing authority, which means that it is being reorganised within its boundaries, it has a certain competence to be able to prepare. However, it does not have the legal ability to prepare—that comes with the new powers endowed upon that council after the election in May. The argument is that, because the core of that authority is not going to change, it will be able to do its preparation work more effectively. The gap is a narrow


one in any case. There is to be an election in May, so reasonable people should be able to sort things out. It is a problem without a reason.

Mr. Roger Berry: Is making appointments part of the preparation or is it not? I understood the Minister to say specifically that it would be wrong for appointments to be made before vesting day; before the new authorities are established. Is that the case? Can we have that reassurance?

Mr. Curry: I shall try to clarify a complex issue.

Ms Primarolo: Yes or no.

Mr. Curry: There is a great tendency to ask for yes or no answers to complicated matters. I am trying to do my best.
With a continuing authority, the council that currently exists will have to undergo a new election in order to exercise its new powers. In the meantime, it is able to do preparation work for that. The old authorities—that is, those that will be reorganised—will, by dint of that reorganisation, have the powers conferred upon them to begin that work. [Interruption.] I can now give the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) a yes or no answer. On whether the authorities can make any appointments before the election of the new authorities, the answer is that they cannot. The answer is no.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Dead simple.

Mr. Curry: As the hon. Gentleman said, it is dead simple, but difficult to remember. I am glad that I have managed to cast light upon that difficult area. If any doubt remains, when I reply to the debate I shall do my best to clarify the issue further. It took me quite a long time to understand the matter. Once one has understood it for about three hours, it is difficult to retain the information much longer. I am being very honest.
We come to another theological subject in which the House is interested, but again it is a material theological subject. I have been asked why the authorities are to be unitary district councils, not unitary county councils. I sometimes wonder why people ask such questions. I genuinely do not understand this question. It makes no difference in terms of local services.
The only significance—I hope that this is not regarded as a mischievous statement—is that it has some bearing on to which local authority association the new councils choose to belong. [Interruption.] I thought I might have spotted that one. However, my understanding is that the local authority associations are to form one big happy family soon, so it is a rather short-term preoccupation.
Perhaps that is not to happen quite as soon as some thought it would. In any event, given that Bristol and North West Somerset are continuing and must therefore continue to be districts, it would be inconsistent and confusing to designate the other authorities in the area as counties. Therefore, all the successor authorities are districts.
The order also makes specific provision in respect of a number of services. For the police, articles 12 and 13 provide for the representatives of the four unitary authorities to replace Avon county council's nominees on

the Avon and Somerset police authority from 1 October 1995 for certain purposes, essentially so that they can be involved in decisions on the budget for 1996–96 and on policing plans. Avon county council's representatives will remain on the authority for all other purposes until that council is abolished.
For the fire service, the order provides for each of the unitary authorities to be fire authority areas. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will, in due course, be bringing forward proposals for a fire combination scheme, so that the fire service will continue to be delivered over the present area.
As unitary authorities, the four Avon districts will be responsible for both strategic and local land use planning for their areas. We are determined that there should be adequate arrangements for strategic planning in areas where reorganisation takes place. In the case of Avon, the commission proposed that the four unitary authorities should maintain separate local plans but work together on a joint structure plan. We have accepted that recommendation.
The draft order gives effect to that by transferring the county's strategic planning responsibilities to the four district councils. We look to them to make the necessary voluntary arrangements for joint working on the structure plan. We expect that the authorities in Avon will establish satisfactory arrangements to fulfil that important planning function.
Our policy is that there should be statutory arrangements only where absolutely necessary; we believe that voluntary arrangements are more accountable. In addition, we do not think that we should tie the hands of the authorities which will be elected in May.
The local government review and reorganisation in Avon have been the subject of a long and vigorous discussion. This has, of course, resulted in uncertainty for all those involved with local government in the area. This order will end that uncertainty. What is important now is that authorities set aside their past differences and work together to make a success of reorganisation and future local government in the area. I am confident that they will do so, and I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Frank Dobson: As with the Cleveland order, it is probably worth reminding the House—especially those Conservative Members who either do not know or have forgotten—that this order from a Tory Government is intended to abolish the Avon county council, which was set up by a previous Tory Government. Some Conservative Members try to portray the Avon, Cleveland and Humberside councils as a Labour creation. However, they were created by a previous Tory Government, and they are now being dismembered by the party that brought them into being. We might describe what we are discussing tonight as a case of municipal infanticide.
The order is also a product of the Government's local government review. We have said before—we shall say it again, because it is true—that the review was conceived in malice against several Labour county councils. The Government do not like Labour councils, irrespective of whether local people vote for them. Perhaps they dislike Labour councils even more because they know that the councils are popular, and the Government have finally


decided that, if they cannot win elections to councils, the only answer is to get rid of the councils. They did it with the Greater London council and with the metropolitan counties and they are now setting about wiping out in a malignant way those county councils that they do not like.

Mr. David Wilshire: I served on Avon county council; I opposed it when the Conservative Government suggested it; I opposed it when it was controlled by the Conservative party to which I belong and I am delighted to vote for its abolition tonight, irrespective of who controls it.

Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman would do well to hide his consistency, because any consistency will obviously prevent him ever reaching the Conservative Front Bench.

Mr. Wilshire: So I notice.

Mr. Dobson: I should not like to bet on it, and I am sure that my hon. Friends would not either.
Originally, the Government said that the review would cover the whole country. As the right hon. Gentleman who is now the President of the Board of Trade said in the House in January 1992:
We know that most local authorities want unitary status and we believe that such status will provide a better structure for the future in most areas."—[Official Report, 20 January 1992; Vol. 232, c. 37.]
If the review turns out as it appears it will, 230 or more of the 296 shire districts that existed before will continue to survive as shire districts with a county council above them, so that 80 per cent. of the councils that the Government intended to reform and to turn into unitary authorities will remain as they were. How have the Government selected the ones that are for the chop?
I return to the fact that the decision was obviously politically motivated, and go on from that to say that the conduct of the Local Government Commission for England, which should have been beyond reproach, has not been. It has not behaved in the quasi-judicial manner that one could expect from something called a Local Government Commission.
Conservative Members may not know about it, but Opposition Members are familiar with the letter front the boss of the Local Government commission for England to the Secretary of State, saying how important it was that the Government and the Commission received "an early wind". That is not usually regarded as a quasi-judicial point of view. I should not like to appear in a court where the judge was asking for an early wind for him and for the police.
That approach has been maintained throughout by the Local Government Commission. It has not conducted itself as it should have done. It has not taken a consistent approach in every part of the country. Its consultations have varied from place to place. As a result, there have been years of wrangling and vast expense. A great deal of money has been spent on court cases, and there has been a massive diversion of effort by local councillors, who would have done better, and no doubt would have preferred, to spend their time trying to ensure reasonable services.
At the end of that process, there are grotesque inconsistencies in the recommendations, ranging from Rutland, which will be a unitary all-purpose authority with 33,000 people, to Warrington and Northampton, with

180,000 people, which will not be given unitary status. Those are the recommendations of the Local Government Commission, before the Secretary of State brings his bizarre judgment to bear on those matters.
At least some progress has been made, in that the Government have conceded that they will bring all the final recommendations of the Commission to the House—a commitment that they previously refused to make.
That brings me to the Avon (Structural Change) Order. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry) and other hon. Friends may wish to speak about its detail, and they will no doubt do so in some depth and possibly at some length—not more than 10 minutes, of course—but we do not believe that the order creating four districts provides a good basis for future high-quality local government in the Avon area.
I am confident that councillors—not only Labour ones, but councillors of all parties—who are elected to the new authorities will do their best to make those arrangements work, but that will be difficult. For a start, it is significant that about 1,000 jobs are put at risk by the reorganisation. As we know from orders that the Government have passed through the House, the compensation terms for staff who may have to lose their jobs are less generous than those that prevailed in 1986 and certainly rather less generous than the severance arrangements that the boss of the Severn Trent water authority arranged for himself, getting about half a million quid for disappearing. That sort of money will not be available to the many staff who have put in a vast amount of dedicated effort on behalf of the people of Avon.
I expect that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood will explain his anxiety about the future of services in the Avon area. Doubts about the cost effects have been expressed by the various contending parties. I join with the Minister in having some doubts about various parts of the order. I also have doubts about anyone's predictions about savings or additional expenditure that will result from the reorganisation of local government, because I cannot think of any set of predictions that has ever been made in the House that turned out to be right.
My main worry is about the boundaries of Bristol. I am convinced that the boundaries of Bristol, as set out in the order, will leave Bristol too narrowly drawn. There are excellent Labour councillors in the city of Bristol.

Ms Primarolo: Even the Government agree that the boundaries drawn for Bristol are not sensible, because they have given an undertaking that they will review those boundaries in a few years' time. The good citizens of Bristol might find themselves having to waste their council tax yet again on bureaucratic change and butchering of their services when it should be spent on building up local democracy.

Mr. Dobson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Michael Stern: The hon. Gentleman is too hasty in agreeing with the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo). He might like to study the details that the Government have announced, which show that there will be nothing other than minor, cosmetic change to the external boundary of Bristol.

Mr. Dobson: I understand that, unless the law is changed, if the Government ask the commission to consider any local government boundaries, the commission can decide for itself the extent or otherwise of the boundary changes. I am subject to correction by the Minister when he has received his information from the civil servants in the Box.
It is obvious that all candidates standing for election in Bristol would prefer the boundaries of Bristol to be wider than they are. The Labour council in Bristol accepts the proposition before us tonight, because it considers that it is confronted with Hobson's choice, so it is thanking the Lord for small mercies. It wants the powers returned to the city of Bristol, but it believes that the boundaries should be wider, so it accepts the best that is on offer.
It is understandable that the Labour council in Bristol should accept what is on offer, but I do not think that that can possibly excuse either the commission or Ministers for proposing boundaries that are plainly ridiculous in the eyes of almost everyone concerned.
That is not the opinion only of the Labour party. I quote from the opinions of the Bristol chamber of commerce. It says that it is
of the view that local government in Avon has a critical role to play in providing the infrastructure necessary for promoting and maintaining economic prosperity—in partnership where appropriate with the private sector.
It says that it is concerned that
Bristol in its historic boundaries would not have the critical mass to tackle the key strategic issues such as transport and planning, or to deal with acute urban problems and inner city degeneration".
In other words, it believes that the boundaries of Bristol will make it difficult for those elected to run that great city to do their jobs.
The Bristol council of social services shares that view. The south western regional council of the Confederation of British Industry is, if anything, even more strongly of the view that the boundaries are wrong. It said:
It is vital that any restructuring of Local Government should produce a system which will facilitate the process of wealth creation for the benefit of the South Western Region.
It went on to say, in its original evidence to the Local Government Commission, that it
favoured a division of the existing County of Avon into three unitary authorities"—
not the four that the Government are proposing—
with the boundaries of the existing City of Bristol expanded to encompass the economic and social unit generally regarded as comprising Bristol.
It said that that is an area much larger than the area covered by the city council. It was concerned that
full and specific consultation should take place on the exact location of the boundaries for an enlarged Bristol.
After the commission's proposals were published, the CBI's response was that the commission's proposals did not meet those needs. It believed that
restricting the proposed Bristol unitary authority to the existing boundaries of the City Council would seriously inhibit economic growth and result in further inner-city degradation.

Since the publication of the recommendations, it has canvassed its members again. The CBI has been asked by its members to stress their belief that the commission's proposals would have a "damaging effect". It goes on to say:
We firmly believe that the Commission has not given sufficient weight to the economic interests of the area.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has made a strong point about his belief that the boundaries for Bristol are inadequate. He has quoted at length business interests in Avon that have made the same point. Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to outline where he thinks the Bristol boundaries ought to lie and whether a Labour Government would review those boundaries with a view to creating a much wider Bristol? That is of great interest.

Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) will deal with the question of where local people—[Interruption.] I am in favour of the people of Bristol and their locally elected representatives deciding where the boundaries should be. I do not have any doubt—scarcely anybody has any doubt—that the boundaries that the Government are putting forward leave Bristol "cabinn'd, cribb'd, confin'd". They are ridiculous boundaries and we should not vote them through.
The boundaries are drawn in that way because this is a political fix. I predict that next week the Government will produce a political fix in the other direction with the proposals for York. Against the views of the people in the area, including businesses, they will create a greater York. This order will produce a lesser Bristol. Both those moves are for squalid party political purposes. That is why I urge my hon. Friends to vote against the order.
We believe that the Government are still cherry picking. They are bopping the counties that they do not like. We believe that they should insist on annual elections for the new authorities that are being established. We believe that there is some sensible concern about the cost of reorganisation.

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman said that the Government should insist on annual elections. He just said that the local people should decide where their boundaries lie, although he did not make it clear whether the people outside a boundary should have the same views as those inside. The current rules mean that if a local council wishes, it can ask to have the electoral system changed. Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that in one instance the local people should decide and that in another instance the Government have to tell them? I do not understand.

Mr. Dobson: Some basic principles are involved. It may be that some people who are currently running a council would like the idea of not having an election for another 10 years. We believe that a third or a quarter of the members of every council should face an election each year. It is a sound approach and it works well in the areas in which it exists already. We believe that it should operate everywhere.
We are concerned that the estimates about the cost or savings that will result from the reorganisation are unsound. We are concerned about the inadequate protection that is provided for the staff, but, above all, we believe that the boundaries of Bristol are harmful. We share the views of those who believe that it will make it harder than is necessary in these difficult times for whoever is elected to represent the people of Bristol to do


their job of looking after the interests of the people of Bristol as well as promoting the economic and social well-being of that great city and the neighbouring areas.
We expect that the Government will vote this through, but we are confident that Labour councillors will be elected to represent the people of Bristol and the other areas. We are confident that they will do their best, but it would be better if they were not doing it in such difficult circumstances.

Sir John Cope: I welcome the order and the changes that it puts in place. The commission made the right recommendations and the Government are right to agree to them. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) made a partisan speech and I do not wish to do that. However, I must respond to what he said. I believe that the commission's recommendation for the boundaries of Bristol was correct and the Government are right to follow it because it is what the people of my constituency want. They do not want to be taken over by Bristol. If the hon. Gentleman wants to follow what the people want, he should know that they want to be governed by South Gloucestershire. They support the proposals, as does the Northavon chamber of commerce.
I want to look back, because it is important to consider why Avon has not worked well as a county and why it scored so low in the public consultation organised by the Local Government Commission.
In the past I have criticised individual policies of Avon county council and its management, but I do not believe that the failure of the county to work is essentially a failure of the individuals involved—either the councillors or the officers—over the past 20 years. I believe that the fundamental flaw is the structure that was set up.
Administratively, it makes sense to govern the area around Bristol with the area of Bristol and that is why, in some cases, business people and others have viewed this in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. The truth is that it defied people's feelings of place. The clashes between Avon and the six districts in particular have been acute for that reason. There has been particularly intense rivalry between the county of Avon and the city of Bristol. It is important to remember that the city of Bristol was not merely a county borough. It had been a county in its own right since 1373—over 600 years. The Local Government Act 1972 deprived it of that status which it had had for so long.
These matters, which are in some respects emotional matters, may seem unimportant when compared with administrative logic, but they are not. The deepest lesson of Avon's short life is that we neglect those roots at our peril. They go very deep into the fabric of British life. Today, 20 years after Avon was set up, people do not say that they live in Avon. They say that they live in Bristol, or Chipping Sodbury near Bristol. They do not say that they live in the county of Avon because that is not how they feel. The Local Government Commission proved that more scientifically through the opinion polls which it conducted. The old counties may be Anglo-Saxon in origin, but they are not outmoded in people's minds.
At the same time, administrative problems remain. It is undoubtedly more difficult to govern the areas north of Bristol, which I represent, from Gloucester, which is 30 miles away, than from Bristol, which is on our doorstep

and far larger. That is why the right solution is the proposed unitary authorities. The new districts are an appropriate size and, apart from anything else, if Bristol were allowed against the wishes of the people concerned to extend its boundaries further north, it would leave a very awkward authority as a successor to South Gloucestershire. It is much more difficult to run a large, disparate authority with partial powers than it is a smaller, more geographically unified authority, with all the powers of local government.
There are messages, I may say to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, for those who want to foist on us an elected regional tier of government. The inhabitants of my constituency do not think that they live in the same part of the country as Bournemouth, even if both places are in the south-west economic planning district. That feeling is even more evident when comparing the inhabitants of Newent, for instance, in the Forest of Dean, with those of Newquay.
As I have said, it is important to consider the administrative complications of separate authorities in the relatively small area that has been the county of Avon. It is very important to stress that the new councils being set up under the order must work together on matters of common concern and, indeed, with neighbouring councils in the adjacent counties. I have every hope that that will work well, as my hon. Friend the Minister suggested when he moved the order.
There will be four councils instead of seven and they will be fully competent bodies dealing as equals with one another. In particular, there will he no more duplication of functions and overlapping rivalries, which have bedevilled the relationships between Avon and the districts within it. Incidentally, they will also be seen to be directly accountable to the electorate, with fewer excuses that their authority did the right thing and some other authority did not. If one asked the man in the street whether powers fell under the county council or the district council, he would have an awful job replying accurately.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the question of what is a county and what is a district. For ceremonial purposes, South Gloucestershire will go back to being part of Gloucestershire. There has been some correspondence about the duties of the lord lieutenant. I think that it is right for Bristol to have a separate lord lieutenant, even though in the past, when it did, it was usually held in plurality with the lord lieutenancy of Gloucestershire. It has in the past also been held in plurality with the lord lieutenancy of Somerset, which would not be a bad idea now. Certainly, Bristol should have a separate position of lord lieutenant, even if it is held in plurality with one of the adjacent countries.
I would like to say a word about the name of the district, to which my hon. Friend the Minister also referred. I believe strongly, as a result of my experience over the past few years, that old names are the best. I have found that, since 1983, when the name of my constituency was changed to Northavon, whenever I am more than a few miles away from the constituency and people ask me what constituency I represent and I reply Northavon, they invariably say, "Where is that?"
People do not take on board all these new names all over the country. Indeed, they have not even been taken on board by whoever drafted the order. There is a misprint on page four, which describes the district as Northwood


as opposed to Northavon. That would not have occurred with Bristol, for example—the proof reader would have spotted it at once—but because of all the invented names that we have had to put up with over the past few years, such mistakes occur.
I am therefore strongly in favour of using the old name where possible. The name South Gloucestershire used to cover the entire proposed authority. It should be the name of this district and I very much welcome the creation of it.

Mr. Roger Berry: I opposed Conservative policy on the previous reorganisation of Avon and I oppose Conservative policy on the current reorganisation for exactly the same reasons. In 1972, when the House debated the Local Government Bill, the Conservatives reorganised matters quite specifically to take control of services such as education, social services and public transport away from Labour city councils, including Bristol. Of course the purpose of that exercise was not to improve services or local accountability; it was to achieve precisely the opposite. That is what we have before us today.
I could not imagine that anyone in the House or elsewhere would think that, after 15 years of the Conservatives attacking local democracy, reorganisation under this Government would do anything other than continue that process of service cuts and redundancies. We have had capping, we have had cuts in rate support grants then revenue support grants, we have had the poll tax, we have had the virtual dismantling of local education authorities and we have had compulsory competitive tendering. After 15 years of measure after measure designed to undermine local democracy, nobody can claim that reorganisation under this Government at this time is anything other than a continuation of that process.
I do not oppose the motion because I oppose in principle unitary local authorities, although I note that Sir John Banham, who chairs the Local Government Commission, told the Association of County Councils in November:
I know of no evidence that smaller unitary authorities will be better placed than county councils to deliver effective and convenient local services".
Sir John Banham was on television—I think—yesterday advising us all about the importance of performance-related pay for senior executives. I would like to see a little performance-related pay for Sir John Banham based on the way in which he has dealt with the local government review.

Mr. Dobson: It would be a rebate.

Mr. Berry: My hon. Friend is right. It would be a rebate of gigantic proportions, which would help us preserve essential services.
I emphasise that I am speaking against the motion not because I oppose the principle of unitary authorities, but because I am opposed, as all sane people must be, to further cuts in essential local services and yet more redundancies which this Government policy will bring about.
There will be cuts because of the substantial costs of reorganisation, which should be met by central Government, but which will not. That is not only my view and the view of local councils in Avon, it is the view of the local branch of the Confederation of British Industry. In its submission to local government commissioners, the CBI said:
In the event of structural changes being introduced, considerable transitional costs would be inevitable. Local revenue would not be in a position to absorb additional costs other than by means of an inordinately large increase in the Council Tax. This would entirely distort anticipated benefits of the structural changes and have the effect of discrediting any new arrangement.
I am sure that the Government have thought about that. The CBI continued:
This paper summits, therefore, that the costs of changes should be funded by central Government.
The costs of reorganisation, to which the CBI and others refer, are substantial. The bids that the local councils in Avon submitted when seeking credit approval to cover the costs of reorganisation totalled £24 million for 1995–96 alone. I pause to contemplate what local services could be improved, or at least protected, if that £24 million were to be spent on services, not reorganisation. But that £24 million is already significantly higher than the total transitional costs estimated by the Local Government Commission for Avon. It said that over all the years that it could anticipate, the costs would be £13 million to £18 million. The local councils say that, in the year before reorganisation, transitional costs will come to £24 million.
Before anyone says, "They would say that, wouldn't they—they would put in bids on the basis of overestimates of expenditure," I should say that the people who are placing the bids are those who are likely to be responsible for running the unitary authorities afterwards. They are the people who believe in reorganisation. It is inconceivable that those who anticipate running a unitary authority and who want to make it work after reorganisation could submit bids that are overestimates. It is well known that, in Avon, the councils are collectively seeking about £50 million to cover the costs of local government reorganisation.
What has the Government's response been? In 1995–96, instead of meeting the £24 million bid, the Government are allocating £6.8 million—a little over a quarter of the amount required to fund reorganisation. That shortfall—let alone the repayment of debt in subsequent years—will inevitably mean service cuts and more redundancies. It is undeniable that there will be substantial redundancies as a result of the reorganisation—at a time when local government staff are frequently stretched to breaking point.
I have lost track of the number of senior officers in Avon who have left or retired, and the number of teachers and social workers who are leaving the profession for reasons of stress and overwork. The inevitable implication of not meeting the cost of reorganisation will be that Government policy will ensure further reductions in services and further redundancies.
The councils in Avon are aware of that. As part of the bid, they have already included an estimate of £7.5 million to cover redundancy costs in 1995–96—before reorganisation. In case anyone thinks that the amounts come from the existing Avon county council, that is not true—some £2.6 million is from Avon and £5 million


from existing district authorities. They anticipate, collectively, that £7.5 million will be spent on redundancy costs before reorganisation. It is as inevitable as night follows day that there will he more redundancies after reorganisation.
I spoke in the last debate on regulations on local government redundancy payments following reorganisation, and I do not want to repeat the points that I made—not least because I have only about two minutes left. The redundancy terms being offered to local government employees are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, worse than in 1986 when the metropolitan counties were abolished. They are worse than under Mrs. Thatcher. Much has happened since 1986—it is not just that Ministers have given themselves better redundancy payments, but there is more unemployment. That is a shameful way to deal with staff who have given good service to their communities.
There are a number of technical issues that I should like to have commented on, but I clearly do not have the time. I am aware, as is the Minister, that Avon county council and the Association of County Councils have diligently pursued a number of technical points which I hope that the Minister will take on board. I pay tribute to the way in which Avon county council has pursued matters on behalf of services and the people who provide them. Councillor Valerie Davey and her colleagues deserve credit for dealing with difficult problems in the best interests of the services and those who provide them.
I came into politics to secure better, not worse, public services. I wanted to secure more employment opportunities, not fewer. These proposals are a recipe for more cuts in services and more redundancies. They constitute another nail in the coffin of local democracy. I urge the House to oppose the motion.

Mr. Michael Stern: I have never made any secret of the fact that, when I was first elected to the House for Bristol, North-West in 1983, I had been living in Bristol for only a few months. During my first general election campaign, at my final election meeting on the night before I was elected, I said that one of my ambitions during my time in Parliament was to see the return of the city and county of Bristol. Like any one embarking on a crusade, I did not expect to see that ambition realised in as little as 12 years. I am delighted to welcome the realisation of that ambition. Judging by the response to my comments, it was probably the most popular pledge of any that I made during that election campaign.
Much has been said tonight on the technical aspects of the change. I should like to look back further and try to explore why Avon never worked—clearly, it did not. I think that there are two reasons, both of which are inherent in the reasons for the moves to the successor authorities which we are contemplating tonight.
The first reason is that Avon clearly never had, and never had the hope of achieving, the consent of the people that it governed. As an authority, it was seen from its first day as being imposed on the people of Bristol and its surroundings. It was resented from the first day and, despite all the strong efforts of the officers and councilors

to achieve acceptance for the county of Avon, the problems that beset it were inherent in its nature and the way in which it subsequently developed.
Many of the problems with us today—for example, the problems that I recently highlighted in the House on choice in secondary education—stem from the fact that a previous Conservative Government sought to impose on the people of Bristol and its surroundings a form of local government that they felt was alien to them.
There is another reason why Avon was such a conspicuous failure. It has often been said by councillors and officers of Avon that it was formed with no financial assets; it was stripped by the district councils of any assets that it might otherwise have chosen to inherit. Avon has not noticed that the same is true of many more successful councils in other parts of the county. As a result of Avon's belief that it had been hard done by, it developed a financial inferiority complex.
In my years in the House I have noticed that the effect of that attitude, which was developed in the early years of Avon's history, is that every year, without fail, instead of trying to plan financially on the basis of the resources that it had and knew it could achieve—as a more relaxed authority might have done—Avon put most of its effort into trying to obtain more. Like many fictional characters, Avon could not come to terms with the facts of its formation, particularly the financial facts. Every year, Avon's arguments for trying to find ways of obtaining more money for itself became more desperate, hopeless and unbelievable. Avon was doomed from its formation, and few people will mourn its passing.
The system with which we are replacing it has a number of advantages, and we must ensure that they are not squandered. The first advantage—in direct contradiction to the point made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—is that the new authorities have the clearly expressed support of the people whom they are being set up to govern. The hon. Gentleman suggested—in a manner of which the current dictator of Iraq would have been proud—that, because certain people in Bristol feel that they have a divine right to rule the surrounding areas, that view should be heard. The last thing that the people outside Bristol want is to be ruled by Bristol, but the hon. Gentleman suggested that their view should be ignored.
We shall be quoting the comments of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras during the local election campaign in May in areas that have made it quite clear that the last thing they want is to be taken over by a city whose style of local government they regard as wholly alien. I strongly deprecate the hon. Gentleman's opinion—and, by implication, that of the Labour party—that only the view of Labour-controlled areas count and that the areas that they seek to govern are not entitled to hold a view at all.
I welcome the order. Tonight I am wearing a tie that bears the coat of arms of the city of Bristol. When the order is passed, I shall be wearing a tie that bears the arms of the city and the county of Bristol. I am the first Member for Bristol, North-West since the late Martin McLaren to be able to make that claim. Having achieved the abolition of the county of Avon, I shall go home and play a recording of Haydn's "Te Deum". As I listen to it, I shall reflect that, even after 22 years, it is possible for a Government to admit that they got something wrong and to make a determined effort to set it right.

Mr. David Rendel: We have said before that the local government reform programme has turned into a shambles, but it is obvious that this case is one of the most shambolic of all. The Government admitted that drafting errors in some of the original legislation caused real problems when considering the question of Avon and its future, and clearly areas of concern remain to be resolved.
We all agree that Avon is a very unpopular county, even after 20 years of existence. From the beginning, it was an artificial creation which was never well loved. As it moves towards its grave, the House should at least pay tribute to the valuable work performed by a number of Avon councillors and officers over the years. Their contribution should not be forgotten.
Serious points and questions about the order must be addressed, one of which taxed the Minister in his opening remarks. For the first time, the reorganisation involves two continuing authorities and two new authorities. That is clearly still causing problems for the Minister, and I for one do not accept the points that he made in reply to earlier interventions.

Mr. Don Foster: Is my hon. Friend concerned that, although the Minister appears to have moved in the right direction, he has not yet made it clear to the House whether any progress towards the appointment of new staff in either the new or the continuing authorities will be possible before vesting day? Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to put that question to the Minister.

Mr. Rendel: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, and perhaps the Minister will respond to it straight away.

Mr. Curry: I realise that time is limited, but I shall make the position clear now in case I am not able to do so in my winding-up speech. As soon as the order is made, all the authorities involved will have new powers and duties to start preparing for reorganisation. They must co-operate because the order enjoins them to do so—for example, Bath and Wandsdyke can start working towards reorganisation at the same time as Bristol.
The decisions about how the new authorities will run their affairs should be made only after a new mandate has been obtained. The order says that authorities cannot make decisions or appointments until after the elections in May. In May, all four unitary authorities will have identical powers to do that. The essential point is that, when the new powers are provided, they are provided equally to all involved.

Mr. Rendel: As it will clearly be more difficult for the two authorities which are joining to form one authority to make even preparatory arrangements before that authority is set up, I believe that the situation is clearly unfair. The new authority which will be created from amalgamating two existing authorities will be disadvantaged compared with the continuing authorities. It is unfair to the staff concerned and to the authorities themselves. It is odd that, in spite of opting for unitaries, the Government have managed to make an enemy of not only the unitary authorities but the Association of District Councils, which is concerned about that point.
Various estimates of the short-term costs of the transition are circulating. The costs are ill-defined; that is perhaps not surprising when we consider what happened in Cleveland, when much higher estimates were made immediately after the order was passed. The Minister should promise—I hope that he will refer to the matter in his winding-up speech—that, if the costs turn out to be much higher than the Government and the commission expected, the Government will help the new authorities to meet the extra costs.
Consultation in this case was clearly inadequate and muddled. When the consultation process began, people were told that they would become part of Somerset or part of Gloucestershire, which later proved to be untrue. That must have been confusing for the people involved and the consultation process might have produced a different result if that point had been clear from the beginning. It is now impossible to gauge the extent to which that confusion might have affected people's view of the reorganisation, and I wish that the Government had engaged in more consultation after the point had been clarified fully.
The question of whether South Gloucestershire and North Somerset will become real counties has muddied the water further. I am glad that the Minister discussed that point earlier, although I do not believe that he clarified it fully.
The Government should have started from scratch in examining the role of the new authorities instead of simply talking about what areas they would cover. The fact that the Government did not consider the new authorities' role properly has led to other difficulties. They have not detailed how strategic services—strategic planning, transport, the fire service, the probation service and the police—will be managed or even how the coroner's office will work in the future.
The Government said today that they want the services to be handled in a voluntary manner because that is more flexible. I suspect that they really mean that they do not know how the services will be handled and they intend to go ahead on a wing and a prayer. That will only increase the administrative burden of those who eventually become the unitary councillors.
There are also points in favour of the order. It looks as though it will produce at least some long-term cost savings. I welcome the extra efficiency and effectiveness in service delivery which may be created as government is brought closer to the people. It is a long-standing principle of my party that government should be brought closer to the people and I look forward to seeing that happen with the new authorities.

Mr. Berry: Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why the Liberal Democrats in Avon do not support the order?

Mr. Rendel: I am not sure to whom the hon. Gentleman refers. There are members of all three parties who are for and against every local government order we have had so far.

Mr. Berry: The hon. Gentleman just said that it was a matter of principle.

Mr. Rendel: It is a matter of principle that we should bring government down to the lowest possible level.
A further point which must be made in favour of the order—perhaps the most important point—is that there is clear public support for it. Some 72 per cent. of people made it clear that they were in favour of the principle of unitary authorities in the area, while only 16 per cent. were against. That is very telling.
The fact that representations to the commission came out four to one favour was also a telling point in favour of the order. Some people said that that was a self-selected sample, and so it was. What was interesting in this case was that the self-selected sample was in favour of something. Usually, such a sample is unreliable only when it is made up of protesters.
In summary, the Government have made a mess of the order, as they made a mess of the reform of Avon. It is also clear that the public in general are behind the order and want it to be passed. There are many uncertainties about the order and, therefore, as it is passed many of its supporters—including, no doubt, the Government—will say a silent prayer that the worst fears of those who oppose it will not come true.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: This is a day of great rejoicing for Weston-super-Mare. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on tabling the order. I also congratulate the Boundary Commission, and in particular the two commissioners responsible who took an immense amount of trouble to see that all the appropriate people were visited, and who came up with the right answer.
In olden days, there would be dancing in the streets, the church bells would be ringing and the fountains would be running with best Somerset cider. Dare I say, if I could claim any credit, a small public subscription would have raised a modest statue to the Member in gratitude for the death of the ogre of Avon county council.
Avon has been disliked and derided ever since it came into being in 1974. I am the only Member in the Chamber who was in the House at the time that local government was reorganised in 1974. As a junior and thrusting parliamentary private secretary, I abstained on the vote which brought the council into being. My only regret over many years has been that I did not vote against, and hand in my cards. This order means that my conscience is clear again.
At long last, we will be back to running our own affairs. Weston-super-Mare is the largest town in Somerset, and it does not want to be run from Taunton. It definitely does not want to be run from Bristol. I believe that my hon. Friends have analysed most sensibly the reason for the failure of Avon—it was the domination of Bristol. When a town the size of Weston-super-Mare is made to feel like a second-rate suburb, it is hardly surprising that its residents would wish to make a change.
I think that I also speak on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who, despite being silenced by his high ministerial office, will know that opinion also runs similarly in the north part of what is to be the new district.
Of course, we do want a little more money for the costs of transition. We have had a supplementary credit approval for £2.5 million, but we asked for £5 million. I am told by those in the know that there is still £27 million in the national pot, so we are hoping for some more money.
There is a minor dispute in my constituency about second-tier councils. Having got rid of Avon, there was a recommendation by the Boundary Commission for a town council. I think that that was a misapprehension. Previously, the charter trustees were told that they could not survive, and they opted naturally for the only alternative. Town councils are normally only given to towns with a population of less than 20,000, and having three town councils would be disastrous for the town.
I was delighted to learn that the Minister has allowed the charter trustees to continue. We need a mayor for a seaside town, and we need a body from which to elect him or her. If that body were to be consulted on planning permissions and have a touch more power, everybody would be totally satisfied. There is pressure to go for a town council on the basis that, if one asks somebody whether they want a town council, they will say yes. But there is no logic in having another tier of government in a town the size of Weston-super-Mare.
Once again, I express my strong support for the introduction of this order. It is something which I have looked forward to for 20 years, and I am delighted to be able to speed it on its way tonight.

Mr. David Wilshire: I consider myself to be very fortunate indeed, as I was born in Somerset and lived there for 30 years. That idyll was only blighted in 1974, when my bit of Somerset was moved into Avon. Every morning for the following 18 years until I moved, I had the discomfort of getting up, drawing my bedroom curtains and looking across my garden to the field next door, which was still in Somerset. That made me vow every morning to do everything in my power to wipe Avon from the map at the earliest possible opportunity.
During my time in Somerset, I had the great privilege of representing Somerset folk as an Avon county councillor for four years and as a Wansdyke district councillor for 11 years, six of those as leader. At every election, I stood both as a Conservative candidate and as a Back to Somerset candidate.
My mention of Wansdyke leads to me digress to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Wansdyke (Mr. Aspinwall). I am sure that the whole House wishes him well in hospital, and understands why he is not here tonight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is here, and, until he took his trappist vows, he too enthused about the abolition of Avon. If he could speak tonight, he might just make the point to the Minister that he would prefer Nempnett Thrubwell to be in north-west Somerset rather than north-east Somerset, but no doubt that debate can continue outside the Chamber.
The order is not just about local issues; it raises a whole range of general issues as well. The constraints of time limit me to mentioning just three of those. First, local government only works well if it is structured on how people feel about themselves. Avon was imposed for administrative and service provision reasons. It was artificial and unloved, and it was never going to work. It proves the point that natural communities are what local government is all about, and I wish that the Local Government Commission had paid more attention to natural communities.
Secondly, the order abolishes two-tier local government in parts of Somerset and Gloucestershire. The results will be better services, clearer accountability and stronger local government. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to reject all other two-tier solutions which have been suggested elsewhere.
Thirdly, the changes recognise the importance of history. My home town of Midsomer Norton has been in Somerset for 1,000 years, just as my constituency of Spelthorne has been in Middlesex for 1,000 years. I would urge the Government to do for the people of Spelthorne what they are doing for the people of Midsomer Norton. They must restore us to the historic county of Middlesex and abandon the status quo proposals for Surrey.
There are occasions when hon. Members do their duty with little enthusiasm, and when we vote out of loyalty rather than conviction. But tonight I need no persuasion. I do not need the help of the Whips, nor do I require any arm-twisting. I shall vote to abolish Avon with conviction and delight. Avon is unloved. It will not be mourned, and I rejoice at its abolition.
Finally, I send a message to friends in all political parties in Wansdyke. I note that they will have more seats on the new authority than Bath and, in my biased view—I am sure that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) will understand—that is exactly how it should be. I look forward to watching my friends restore pride in local government and pride in Somerset. I wish them well.

Mr. Barry Field: One wonders where the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has been. He accuses the Government of a conspiracy against Labour-controlled county councils, quietly forgetting that the county council on the Isle of Wight was Liberal-controlled and campaigned for a unitary authority. The Liberal Democrat spokesman seems now oblivious to the points that he made in the debate on that occasion.
The Local Government Act 1972 clearly states that a council can he a county council authority or a district council authority. As has been explained many times, the Local Government Act 1992 stipulates that an authority can be a successor authority only if it is not to be abolished and reorganised—that is the glitch in the legislation.
I promised the Minister when we debated the Cleveland order, and before that the Isle of Wight order, that I would try to attend each of these debates to make similar points about parish and town councils. Under this order, I am told that 131 parish and town councils are covered. Of that number, six are parish meetings and five are town councils.
During the Cleveland debate, I promised to keep raising the matter with my hon. Friend until I got a result—and I think that I am getting close to a result now.
I learn from the order that there is to be a different electoral cycle for Bristol, which has no parish or town councils; it will therefore not be affected by the order, because it will be on the county council election cycle, whereas all the other authorities affected will be on the district council cycle—1995 plus four years. The county election cycle is 1997 plus four years. As a result, all the

parish and town councils will, under the order, be able to come up for elections together with their local authorities, thus saving local taxpayers considerable sums of money.
My hon. Friend has heard me say often enough that the election costs for many parish and town councils amount to more than their precepts; so combining the election cycles is a good idea.
I await the day when the Minister will tell us how he intends to get out of the conundrum facing the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I urge Members on both sides of the House to support this order. It is essential for local democracy that we have unitary authorities and do not continue with a two-tier system that nobody understands. In 1977, as an adopted candidate for the Greater London Council elections, I went to see Conservative Central Office and said that, having discovered what the GLC did, we ought to abolish it. I was assured that mine was a disgraceful, heretical suggestion: under no circumstances would it be abolished. Now that the GLC has been abolished, things are better for all Londoners, and the benefits have been immediately visible.
People understand what unitary authorities mean—a one-stop opportunity for local accountability and local democracy. I urge the Minister, as he sees this important flagship provision passing into law this evening, to remember that Torbay was recommended by the Local Government Commission for unitary status. I hope that he will bear in mind too that the Liberals, the Labour party and all Conservatives in Torbay are united—unlike those concerned with this order—in hoping that it will also receive unitary status, as recommended by Sir John Banham.

Mr. Curry: I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope), and with my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who spoke not as a Member representing this part of the world but on the basis of personal experience of it. I heard what he said about Middlesex. It is an example of a county that still exists in ceremonial and sporting terms and which usefully shows that a county can carry on even without a local authority being associated with its name.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) concentrated on the importance of service delivery. This move has been all about service delivery—bringing services to the people, rationally organising services and trying to overcome some of the difficulties of a two-tier structure. This solution would not commend itself in all circumstances, but the commission recommended it in this case, and we thought it the right thing to do.
I well remember the representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Sir J. Wiggin) on the problem that he faced with the parish council, or the charter trustees. I am delighted that we were able to find an outcome that enabled the charter trustees to continue in Weston-super-Mare. I agree with him that it is important that such towns have their ancient traditions confirmed, and have people who can be seen to represent them in their ceremonial functions.
As many of my hon. Friends have said, continuity is an important aspect of local traditions and democracy. We are trying to reach down to ancient roots and give them modern shape so that they may continue to flourish. That is why local government has always been subject to reform and change, drawing on the best traditions and bringing it into a world in which it can use modern techniques to deliver the services that are now in demand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare also mentioned resources. Of the £50 million that we have nationally for 1995–96, I have deliberately held back more than half, so that we can allocate it later in the year when the authorities have had a chance to develop their plans. So further resources will be allocated to the Avon authorities. Of course I cannot promise to meet in full what they estimate to be their needs, but some additional resources will be available. I thought it sensible to wait and see how their plans developed, and then make the allocations. We shall keep the matter under close scrutiny.
We have made it clear that this reorganisation will be economically financed. We do not intend people to take the opportunity to see whether it would be nice to have a new town hall on the back of the reorganisation. Indeed, one local authority already decided that that would be a good wheeze. We shall ensure that authorities do what is necessary. As everyone agrees, the money needs to go to services. There is little point in reorganisation to improve services if the resources are diverted to structural agglomeration.

Mr. Don Foster: I am sure that many people listening will be delighted to hear that. When should bids be made for the additional money?

Mr. Curry: When the new authorities have been constituted—once the elections are over and the new authorities are in place—I would expect to receive the additional bids. That would seem to be the sensible time.
I was intrigued by the speech made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, and especially by the interplay between him and the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Berry). The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that he would defer to his hon. Friend, to allow him to provide us with much greater detail about where the boundaries of Bristol should lie. But answer came there none.
The hon. Member for Kingswood offered no illumination; we were deeply disappointed. It is clearly a case of one general handing over to another, but neither gave the command—

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. Robert Atkins): One corporal to another, surely?

Mr. Curry: I am being charitable. I am always willing to over-promote Opposition Members.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went on about how wicked all these boundary notions were. We are not changing Bristol's boundaries, because the commission did not recommend such a change, but we have said that the Boundary Commission will be invited to look at anomalies in the boundary.
I would, however, ask the House to imagine what the hon. Gentleman would have said if, contrary to the commission's recommendation, we had changed the local boundaries. Imagine the hon. Gentleman's Miltonic indignation—the peals of thunder that would have

emanated from him—had we interfered with the commission's recommendations on boundaries. Yet all the hon. Gentleman's indignation today was because we did not interfere. I should be interested to learn from him in what circumstances we ought to interfere and when we should not interfere in the matter of boundaries.
The hon. Gentleman said directly that he believes that there should be a significant widening of Bristol's boundaries. I understood him to say that it should follow consultation with the people of Bristol. I should be interested to know whether he has any plans to consult people outside Bristol, and to find out where they think the boundaries should be. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to consult all involved. I have an inkling that the answers will not be unanimous.

Mr. Stern: Such consultation did take place. The result was an overwhelming negative in terms of Bristol. It is clear that that does not matter to the Labour party.

Mr. Curry: The Labour party's technique is clear. There are many Opposition Members who wish to see unitary authorities. They bring their delegations to us to ask for unitary authorities. Many local Labour leaders want to see unitary authorities. They come and ask for them. The Labour-led local authority associations also want to see unitary authorities. They say, "Please can we have more unitary authorities?"
There is a great deal of private canvassing for unitary authorities. The only thing that Labour will not do is to be seen to vote for unitary authorities. Labour wants them, pleads for them and leads delegations to ask for them, but it wants to have it both ways. That is arrant hypocrisy. If Opposition Members believe in something, they should put their money where their mouths are, along with their votes in the House. They do not do that. That is dishonourable, and I hope that their electorates note it. I commend the order to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 202.

Division No. 83]
[8.00 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Boswell, Tim


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bowden, Sir Andrew


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Bowis, John


Alton, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Amess, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Ancram, Michael
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Sir Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)


Ashby, David
Browning, Mrs Angela


Atkins, Robert
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Burns, Simon


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Burt, Alistair


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Butcher, John


Baldry, Tony
Butler, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Bellingham, Henry
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bendall, Vivian
Carrington, Matthew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carttiss, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Chapman, Sydney


Booth, Hartley
Chidgey, David






Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Robert


Clappison, James
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Horam, John


Coe, Sebastian
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Colvin, Michael
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Conway, Derek
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hunter, Andrew


Cran, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jack, Michael


Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Day, Stephen
Jenkin, Bernard


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jessel, Toby


Devlin, Tim
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dicks, Terry
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dover, Den
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Duncan, Alan
Kilfedder, Sir James


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dunn, Bob
Knapman, Roger


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Elletson, Harold
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Knox, Sir David


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Lamont Rt Hon Norman


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Faber, David
Legg, Barry


Fabricant, Michael
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Foster, Don (Bath)
Luff, Peter


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
Lynne, Ms Liz


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
MacKay, Andrew


Gardiner, Sir George
McLoughlin, Patrick


Garnier, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Maddock, Diana


Gillan, Cheryl
Madel, Sir David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Malone, Gerald


Gorst, Sir John
Marland, Paul


Grant Sir A (SW Cambs)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mates, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Hague, William
Merchant, Piers


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hamam, Sir John
Moate, Sir Roger


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Harvey, Nick
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Nick
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steve


Hendry, Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip





Ottaway, Richard
Sweeney, Walter


Page, Richard
Sykes, John


Paice, James
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thomason, Roy


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Powell, William (Corby)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rathbone, Tim
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Thumham, Peter


Rendel, David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Richards, Rod
Tracey, Richard


Riddick, Graham
Tredinnick, David


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Trend, Michael


Robathan, Andrew
Trotter, Neville


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Viggers, Peter


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Walden, George


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wallace, James


Sackville, Tom
Waller, Gary


Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Ward, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Waterson, Nigel


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Sims, Roger
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Whittingdale, John


Speed, Sir Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Willetts, David


Spink, Dr Robert
Wilshire, David


Spring, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Arm (Congleton)


Sproat, Iain
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wolfson, Mark


Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Wood, Timothy


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stephen, Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Stern, Michael



Stewart, Allan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Streeter, Gary
Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Michael Bates.


Sumberg, David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Ainger, Nick
Caravan, Dennis


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cann, Jamie


Allen, Graham
Chisholm, Malcolm


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Church, Judith


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clapham, Michael


Armstrong, Hilary
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Ashton, Joe
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Austin-Walker, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barnes, Harry
Clelland, David


Battle, John
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bayley, Hugh
Coffey, Ann


Beggs, Roy
Connarty, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Benton, Joe
Corbett, Robin


Bermingham, Gerald
Cousins, Jim


Berry, Roger
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Blunkett, David
Dalyell, Tam


Boateng, Paul
Davidson, Ian


Boyes, Roland
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Bradley, Keith
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Don


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Dobson, Frank


Burden, Richard
Donohoe, Brian H


Cabom, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Callaghan, Jim
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Eagle, Ms Angela






Enright, Derek
Meale, Alan


Etherington, Bill
Michael, Alun


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Miller, Andrew


Flynn, Paul
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Foulkes, George
Morley, Elliot


Fraser, John
Morris, Fit Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Galloway, George
Mudie, George


Gapes, Mike
Mullin, Chris


George, Bruce
Murphy, Paul


Gerrard, Neil
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Godman, Dr Norman A
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Godsiff, Roger
O'Hara, Edward


Golding, Mrs Llin
Olner, Bill


Graham, Thomas
Pearson, Ian


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pickthall, Colin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pike, Peter L


Hain, Peter
Pope, Greg


Hanson, David
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hardy, Peter
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Primarolo, Dawn


Henderson, Doug
Purchase, Ken


Heppell, John



Hill. Keith (Streatham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hinchliffe, David
Radice, Giles


Hodge, Margaret
Randall, Stuart


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Raynsford, Nick


Home Robertson, John
Redmond, Martin


Hood, Jimmy
Reid, Dr John


Hoon, Geoffrey
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hoyle, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Rooney, Terry


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hutton, John
Rowlands, Ted


Illsley, Eric
Ruddock, Joan


Ingram, Adam
Sedgemore, Brian


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Sheerman, Barry


Jackson, Helen
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jamieson, David
Short, Clare


Janner, Greville
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Soley, Clive


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Spellar, John


Jowell, Tessa
Steinberg, Gerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Straw, Jack


Khabra, Piara S
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Kilfoyle, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Livingstone, Ken
Timms, Stephen


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Tipping, Paddy


Loyden, Eddie
Touhig Don


McAllion, John



McAvoy, Thomas
Turner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Vaz, Keith


Macdonald, Calum
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McFall, John
Walley, Joan


McKelvey, William
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Watson, Mike


MacShane, Denis
Wicks, Malcolm


McWilliam, John
Wiliams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mahon, Alice
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Mandelson, Peter
Wise, Audrey


Marek, Dr John
Worthington, Tony


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wray, Jimmy


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Wright, Dr Tony


Martin, Michael J (Springburn)



Martlew, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Maxton, John
Mr. Stephen Byers and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Meacher, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Avon (Structural Change) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 9th February, be approved.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have given notice to the office of the Leader of the House that I intend to raise a point of order. You will be aware that the business this evening is somewhat unusual in that we have three one-and-a-half-hour debates. It is therefore perfectly reasonable for Ministers, in exceptional circumstances or when something urgent needs to be said, to come to the House to make a statement without interrupting the flow of business. I therefore wonder whether you have had any response to the request made earlier by my hon. Friends that the Secretary of State for Health should make a statement to the House about the increase in prescription charges, which has been announced by way of a written answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not really a point of order for the Chair. As far as I am aware, the Chair has not been notified of any Government intentions whatever.

Student Finance

Mr. Bryan Davies: I beg to move,
That the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3044), dated 30th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be revoked.
I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following motion:
That the Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1994 (S.I., 1994, No. 3045), dated 30th November 1994, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st December, be revoked.
The debate takes place against a background of worsening student hardship and an increasingly defective system of student support. Those facts are undeniable, yet the Government are determined to press ahead and make further cuts in the grant next year, increase dependence on a flawed and failing student loans scheme and abolish the allowance paid to mature students for the extra financial needs that they have.
The Government have also clamped down on any increase in participation in higher education. They have frozen the number of places available. That is both economic madness and a social injustice. It represents a blunting of aspirations and a denial of opportunities for qualified students.. Even the CBI has called for a 40 per cent. graduation rate for young people. The Government have set their face against that advice and, just as with the economy, they demonstrate that they can organise a short-term boom, but in higher education, of course, that is followed by bust.

Dr. Keith Hampson: The hon. Gentleman and I have crossed swords on higher education for a great many years, from his previous time as a Member of Parliament. He does not acknowledge the greatest single expansion of opportunity that there has ever been in this country in higher education. The number of people going into higher education has increased from one in eight to one in three. The only time since the war that the numbers and the percentage fell was when he was a member of the previous Labour Government.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman is disregarding the record of the Conservative Government over 15 years. He should recognise that the Conservative party had been in power for almost a decade before it addressed the representations, which had been made right across the sector, of the necessity to increase opportunities for our young people. It then produced a short-term, five-year period of rapid expansion—I freely acknowledge that—not, I might add, bringing us up to the level of many of our competitors in advanced economies, but nevertheless creating a degree of expansion. Then we had the 1993 trauma of budgetary cuts, and instead of an education policy we saw an economic policy that caused a collapse of education provision.
The student loans scheme, in which we have been asked to place our confidence, is totally flawed and failing. It is universally derided. It fails on every criterion by which it should rightly be assessed. First, is the scheme fair or equitable? Loans are not available to part-time students,

who must pay all their own fees and maintenance costs and make up 35 per cent. of the people in higher education.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): As the hon. Gentleman has now accurately referred to the participation of part-timers in higher education, will he please explain why earlier he said, inaccurately, that the participation rate was frozen, without respect and without reference to the part-timers whose participation is not frozen?

Mr. Davies: The Government should be careful when taking responsibility for the expansion in the number of part-time students. The Government give precious little in the way of support or opportunity to part-time students; in fact, they have continually set their face against such participation, and—I shall refer to it later—there is one clear instance of a group of students whom the Government appear to be setting out to deter. The student loans system is also flawed in that it does nothing for the vast majority of postgraduates. Loans are concentrated on a minority in post-compulsory education.
Secondly, the scheme requires graduates to repay loans at a time when their earnings are likely to be at their lowest—shortly after they have entered the employment market. Yesterday, at Question Time, the Minister said that the average figure for a monthly repayment at present is £14, but that is because he has included all the people who are paying now for courses that they completed when they could borrow only small amounts and therefore are repaying minimal amounts and bringing the average down. Already for many students the sum is far higher and is bound to increase in the future as Government plans to cut grant and increase the loans develop.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: Will my hon. Friend find time in his speech to refer to the fact that not only is the student loans scheme inadequate in giving security to students but even when mistakes are made—students in my constituency have waited as much as a term to have any money at all—there does not appear to be an adequate system to deal with the problems?

Mr. Davies: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for being one of the first to bring to the attention of the House the flawed system that the Student Loans Company was operating and for identifying the large number of students before Christmas who were victims of the scheme's failure.
The Minister is quite prepared to see the level of loan repayments increase. The Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals estimates that by the end of the century students will owe as much as £96 a month. Therefore, we are not talking about trivial amounts. Yesterday, the Minister sought to suggest that at present the figures were low, concealing the full position.
The inescapable fact is that once graduates go above the low repayment threshold they must pay back amounts that bear no relation to their earnings. That is why there is no equity in the system. The latest figures show that even on the present minimal borrowings, more than 20,000 borrowers were in default status and more than 2,000 were subject to legal action.
Only 47 per cent. of students took out loans last year, compared with a Government estimate of 80 per cent. when they designed the scheme. In the first year, the


take-up was only 28 per cent. The figure therefore has been creeping up only marginally. It is clear that a central plank of the Government's student support policy is just not delivering.
The third flaw in the scheme is that it does nothing to widen access to higher education for all social classes. Increased access depends primarily on increasing the number of places available—the very feature that the Government have frozen. It is clear that relative social class participation rates have not changed significantly for many years. The CBI confirmed that last year.
Finally, the loan scheme is grossly inefficient. It does not generate funds for higher education as the Government intended. Last year, only £19.8 million was repaid. That just about covers the running costs of the Student Loans Company. The administration of the scheme, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), has been appalling. My hon. Friend knows that I will reinforce his argument this evening.
Last year, there was chaos in the processing of loans under a new fast-track application system. Some 35,000 students had still not received their loans by Christmas, of which the company admitted that at least 8,000 cases were its fault. The company was besieged by complaints. It received 11,000 calls each day from anxious students who had been left high and dry. The chairman of the CVCP was moved to white in the strongest terms to the Minister about the deprivation and suffering that that abject failure had caused.
The assessor, a somewhat reclusive figure who is supposed to act as an ombudsman for students, has been paid £34,000 in the past four years, yet he has dealt with only three cases, in two of which he found in favour of the company while the third is still awaiting consideration. One of those was a case brought to my attention of a student who had withdrawn temporarily from a course because he had to undergo two serious operations. Despite being fully informed of the position, the company stepped in and activated a direct debit to withdraw funds from the student's bank account. The assessor found that the company had done nothing wrong. What sort of ombudsman is that?
Meanwhile, the Department for Education has commissioned an investigation into allegations of malpractice and mismanagement at the Student Loans Company. The National Audit Office has also announced its intention to conduct a further investigation. This is a disgrace and it demands a full inquiry. Imagine the uproar if pensioners or the unemployed had been deprived of their livelihoods. Why should students be treated any differently?
The Government claim that student poverty does not exist and that the resources available to students have been maintained in real terms. That simply is not the evidence of the figures or what experience tells us. Students are turning increasingly to part-time work. Some universities are beginning to look for jobs that they can create for students so that students can keep body and soul together. Where students cannot obtain part-time work, they increasingly have to have recourse to the banks and to friends and relatives. Those who are lucky can just about survive. Those who are not so lucky drop out.
Hon. Members have many surveys and the experience of their surgeries to tell them a completely different story from the one given by the Government. The CVCP conducted a survey last autumn which showed a worrying increase in dropout rates of 30 per cent. between 1991–92 and 1992–93 for reasons other than failure on the course. The chief executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England was reported recently as saying:
the system as a whole was under recruited last year, which indicates a fall in numbers in the late years of courses … My guess is that the reasons are financial, with people building up debts, looking around and saying 'I have to do something about this."'

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Is ray hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, with a high percentage of students in one part of it, one can see the enormous pressure on mature students in particular to continue their courses? Will my hon. Friend ask the Minister to comment on the difficulties faced by law students from families without substantial financial backing or professional wherewithal who find it impossible to finish their training because they have no financial assistance in the final year of the law degree to enable them to finish their practical work?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. We have only one and a half hours for the debate and many hon. Members wish to speak, so long interventions of that nature do not help.

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for identifying a crucial area which should cause concern to which I hope the Minister will respond.
The problem is destined to get worse. I have a letter from the treasurer of Somerville college, Oxford, which says:
Dear Parent or Guardian,
The College would like to draw to your attention the finances needed for an undergraduate in Oxford … Government assistance, whether in the form of a grant or a loan, no longer provides sufficient funds to support an undergraduate in Oxford.
I believe that Somerville was the college attended by the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher. I wonder how her father, Alderman Roberts, would have responded to such a letter.
The brutal facts are that the Government have progressively whittled away the value of the maintenance grant, excluded students from benefit entitlements and taken away the vacation hardship allowance. The total weekly resources available to most students are less than those given to someone on state benefits. To cap it all, students who seek to flee today's appalling increase in prescription charges by applying for free prescriptions on the grounds of low income will find that the student loan is treated as notional income, regardless of whether they have availed themselves of the loan. That effectively means that the vast majority of our students will receive no help at all with those costs. As one of my hon. Friends graphically expressed it earlier this evening, prescription costs are 2,500 per cent. above what they were when the Government first came to power.
Perhaps the most pernicious, short-sighted and indefensible measure that we are debating tonight is the withdrawal of the means-tested older students allowance. It penalises all those who want a second chance at higher education. In a modern economy, people must be given the opportunity and encouragement to undertake learning


throughout their lives. Abolishing the older student allowance does precisely the reverse. It has no educational justification whatsoever; it is simply a Treasury-led cut.

Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As he is presumably not going to speak for too much longer, will he now put some figures on student grants? Will he tell the House what he thinks the right level of student grant should be? As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) pointed out, one in three young people become students at our universities and colleges. What should their grants be, and how would a Labour Government pay for them?

Mr. Davies: As I pointed out this evening, the drop-out rates alone show that present resources are insufficient. Of course I am not prepared to give a figure now, but it is manifestly clear that the Government are serving students ill.
If the Government do not believe that the cut will deter mature students' participation in higher education, perhaps the Minister will tell me how he would respond to a letter that I received recently. It said:
I have recently been offered a place at University which I was delighted to accept. This follows three years of studying at evening classes to obtain two A-Levels. As I work caring for adults with learning difficulties and have two small children it was not easy. You can imagine how devastated I feel to realise that I cannot, after all my efforts, accept this place due to the removal of the mature students allowance, which was to me worth £1,000 a year".
It continues:
The ironic thing is that my local college contacted me today to tell me that I had been chosen as one of the nominees for student of the year.
How would the Minister respond to that letter? Would he tell its writer to apply for access funds?
The removal of the mature students allowance is a disgrace and the Minister should be ashamed of commending the order which contains it to the House tonight.

Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend mentioned that, for mature students, it is their second chance for an education. Does he accept that it is often not their second chance, but their last chance, for an education, and their last chance of escaping poverty in communities such as ours, where a poll on job vacancies one day last May showed that the average hourly rate was just over £3 a hour?

Mr. Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister will have heard his comments and I hope that he responds to the issues this evening.
Student support is failing. Students are in poverty and some get no help at all. We need a comprehensive system of support for lifelong learning, not a shambolic mess of half measures that fails just about everyone who comes near it. The Government should think again. I urge the House to revoke the orders.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): Even the best friends of the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) would not regard that performance as a magical speech. The hon. Gentleman

missed his vocation as a magician. He sought to distract the House's attention with hair-raising and heart-rending stories of student poverty that had very little reference to the facts.

Sir Harold Walker: I received an anguished telephone call today from one of my constituents who was induced to undertake a three-year course, the first year of which expires this September, when I understand that student will face a cut of £1,000 in grant and, having been encouraged to take the course, will no longer be able to continue it. That is horrendous and disgraceful. Although £1,000 may be marginal for the Minister, it represents disaster for a student.

Mr. Boswell: I am always interested in interventions from the right hon. Gentleman. I shall investigate the case, but the figures that he has given me suggest that it almost certainly involves a non-mandatory award and may suggest some withdrawal of support by local authorities.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton sought to weave a tissue of concern about student poverty. He said that the system was failing, but he did not say a word about the proposals on which he based his principled opposition to the orders. That is perhaps understandable, because the failure rate of Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on higher education is considerable.
In the past, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) suggested that one possible option would be through
funds from individuals using and directly benefiting from higher education.
He then passed from the scene, but the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton said just after Christmas that he would be prepared to consider a graduate tax. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) expressed interest by saying:
I am interested in the tax related to income which is progressive and I shall explore that, but we are a long way from taking a decision.
We have heard very little about that tonight, for the simple reason that the Opposition do not wish to say too much about their alternative proposals.
Tonight we are faced with a proposition to overturn regulations that will bring considerable benefits to students and that are essential for their welfare. The regulations validate for forecast inflation the main rates of grant and loan for the coming year and the supplementary maintenance allowances for students with additional needs such as disabled students and students with dependants. They are essential if students are to receive these increases, and they follow yearly increases since 1990–91 that have been consistently above the outturn rate of inflation. We did not hear that from the hon. Gentleman, but it is true.
As a result, the support available to students through the total grant and loan package in the current year is more than 5 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1990–91.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The Opposition accept that there has been an increase in the number of young people going on to higher education. Our concern is that people from modest family backgrounds or with modest means have great difficulty in embarking on a university course. How will the Minister's proposals help those people? We already know


that students are having great difficulty. How will the Minister encourage people from poor backgrounds into higher education. Certainly someone from my background would not be able to enter higher education today.
In respect of mature students, I have a letter from the university of Birmingham, which is extremely concerned about the effect of these measures—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already pointed out to the House that long interventions deny those who are waiting the opportunity to speak in the debate. In a short debate of this nature, they are not helpful.

Mr. Boswell: Perhaps I can respond to the hon. Lady by saying that I entirely share her concern for the participation of less-favoured students or students from less-favoured backgrounds. It is a matter of record. The latest student income and expenditure survey, which is carried out independently, shows that the participation of those from relatively disadvantaged groups such as socio-economic class C1 or below is now rising above 50 per cent.
Before being interrupted—I do not propose to give way extensively, because I want to hear the Back-Bench speeches—I was going to refer to the older students' allowance. It is easy for the Opposition to take no notice of financial implications, but funding is always under pressure and we must always weigh our priorities. The withdrawal of the allowance will save £5 million in the coming year, then £10 million and £30 million progressively.

Mr. David Blunkett: It is disgraceful.

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman says that it is disgraceful. The allowance is means-tested—indeed, it is doubly means-tested. I suppose that this is a characteristic of Islington man, or whoever populates the Opposition Front Bench, which the hon. Gentleman may not have noticed. Unlike any other Government support, the older student's allowance is means-tested: students must have an income of £12,000 a year to qualify. It is not related to need; it is intended to cushion people experiencing a decline from a relatively more favourable salary.
As for the needs side, there is provision in the access funds, as well as the overall student support package. We do not feel, however, that giving an exceptional allowance to those on the highest incomes can any longer be justified.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boswell: Almost for the last time.

Mr. Welsh: May I ask a brief question about the mature student's allowance? To qualify for the allowance next year, a student must be in receipt of it this year. What will happen to those who were receiving the allowance but left their studies for a year because of illness or other reasons? Will they still qualify?

Mr. Boswell: Yes, they will. We protect their position, as we protect the position of those currently on courses. I am talking about new students.
The regulations set out new loan arrangements for students studying in London who choose to live away from the parental home, but who—in the view of the local

education authority—could conveniently live with their parents while studying. That special loan rate has been set above the parental home rate of loan, so students will still receive a cash increase compared with what they received this year.
I have already mentioned the uprating of student support over the past five years. That real-terms uprating followed a 25 per cent. cash increase in the main rates of student support when loans were introduced in 1990, which was more than adequate to compensate most students for the withdrawal of benefit in the same year. I should remind the House that particularly vulnerable students, such as single parents, have a continuing opportunity to receive benefit; but to restore students' benefits wholesale—housing benefit, for instance—would encourage the dependence on the welfare system that we have properly sought to eliminate.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister answer a simple question? If I cut his salary by 30 per cent. and offered him a bank loan instead, would he consider himself to be better off?

Mr. Boswell: The hon. Gentleman may have overlooked the fact that the total cash package available to students includes the 1990 uplift of 25 per cent. He needs to draw a distinction, as I thought his party was seeking to in other contexts, between those who require social support because they are particularly vulnerable—I share the hon. Gentleman's concern for such groups—and those who are investing in their future through the medium of higher education, and whose future earnings are likely to be substantially greater than the earnings of those who are financing their time at university.
There are extra allowances for those who find it hard to stay at university, including disabled students, students with dependants and students who study for longer than the normal academic year. I take a particular personal interest in the fact that the access funds for higher education have been substantially increased for the third successive year, by a further £1 million to £22 million.

Dr. Hampson: I have always supported the loans scheme, but we must accept that the vice-chancellors in particular argue that there are problems with the current position. One of the central issues has been the invariable repayment system—the mortgage-type system. Is my hon. Friend investigating that? Even if we keep the present structure, could it be related to income?

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, because it enables me to pick up a point that was made earlier. We continue to keep repayments in the existing structure under review; if the figures escalate from the £14 that I mentioned to the House yesterday, we shall be prepared to consider whether and when it would be appropriate to vary the repayment periods.
As for moving to a different structure, my hon. Friend will know that we are carrying out a review of higher education. All matters can be considered, but we have no immediate plans to act because we believe that the scheme is well conceived and is broadly meeting its objectives.
The hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton was not ready to concede that there are more students in higher education than ever before. Nearly one in three of our young people now enter higher education, compared with one in eight when the last Labour Government were in


office. Student numbers will increase by some 22,000 in the year to come, and will continue at a record level in the planning period through to 1997–98.
Our policies have helped to ensure, and will continue to ensure, that higher education is no longer merely the privilege of the wealthy; I share the concern of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones) about that. That expansion would not have occurred if we not been prepared to grasp the nettle, in the teeth of opposition from the Labour party, and find a means of widening opportunities.

Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Boswell: For the last time.

Mr. Tracey: Will my hon. Friend say a word or two about what he is doing to shake up the Student Loans Company? Although in my experience students are rather in favour of loans—they accept that they will have very good opportunities—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That point does not arise from the regulations.

Mr. Boswell: I may deal with my hon. Friend's point in a moment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will not do so; I have already ruled that the point does not arise from the regulations.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I need to make the point—because the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton did not—that total available public funding for English universities and colleges will increase by some 3 per cent. between the current year and next year, to a record £4.5 billion. That is the system that the hon. Gentleman considers to be failing, or to be on its last legs. Student support through grants and loans will amount to a further £1.7 billion, producing an overall public total of £6.2 billion. In a difficult public expenditure climate, that is a remarkably good show: it will ensure that the participation rate of young and older people is maintained within the target, which is already over 30 per cent.
Respecting the point that you made about the orders, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall now turn to the student loans to which one of them relates. I shall deal with both their quantity and the delivery of the system. The Student Loans Company certainly experienced difficulties last term; I acknowledge immediately that those difficulties caused real problems for students, and were not acceptable. They arose because of a new application process that was intended to speed up payments for repeat borrowers. The process did not work as well as it should have; nevertheless, it is worth pointing out that some 336,000 loans were paid by the company this year, compared with 246,000 last year. The system is not failing but extending itself, and it is increasingly accepted by students.
The company has set up an urgent examination of the administrative difficulties, and—together with, at my suggestion, the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals and the National Union of Students—is

considering what action is necessary to avoid any recurrence. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have taken a close interest: we have asked for a full report from the board, and we are anxious for proper decisions to be taken to ensure that the problems do not occur again.
I think, however, that it is wrong for the Opposition to confuse their uneasiness and equivocation about the case for changes to the loan system with the controversy that they tend to drag in—the oldest possible red herring—about the administration or, in a sense, the propriety of conduct of the Student Loans Company. There have been problems this year, which I have acknowledged, but we continue to believe that the system is fundamentally well designed.
Indeed, the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton about the relatively low load on the assessor makes the point that the same demand, concern and failure did not exist in earlier years. The assessor will have to consider the points that have been made to him, although I hope again that the House will recognise that the first port of call for complaint is the company. That is as it should be.
We hear calls for some more radical changes. It is easy, for example, to call for an income contingent repayment scheme. The existing scheme is already income contingent. Graduates need pay nothing until they are earning nearly £14,600 per annum. Figures from the incomes data service were quoted in the Financial Times today. They showed that the average graduate starting salary was £13,800 per annum, which is below that other figure. It is therefore not surprising that, as of 1 February, 45 per cent. of borrowers have taken advantage of the concession. They have deferred repayment of their loans. That is exactly as intended.
The hon. Member for Brightside confused formal defaults with those of people who are not yet in that position. The figures are lower than he anticipated. The number of people who are not paying is clearly a small proportion of the total number of loans extended.
It is easy to call for cure-all loans through a tax on the national insurance system. They would be complicated to administer and would have to be paid for. The hon. Member for Brightside is beginning to trail the idea of slinging graduate taxes around the necks of students indefinitely. On graduation, many of them will take out mortgages for house purchase at substantially higher rates than the projected or likely rates of student loans.
Having said that, we are far from complacent about higher education. We care too much about it for that and it is too important to this country for that. Last autumn, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced a wide-ranging review in consultation with all the people who have an interest. We are considering the purpose of higher education and its future size and shape. In the light of views submitted to us on those fundamental issues, we shall move on to review funding and student support arrangements to ensure that they continue to be appropriate at the turn of the century and beyond.
The guiding principle behind student loans—that students should make some financial contribution to the cost of their attendance in higher education—is finding increasing favour with the people involved. They include the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Royal Society, the Borrie Commission on Social Justice,


the National Commission on Education, and even, fleetingly, the Labour party. The number of students applying for loans continues to rise. The hon. Member for Brightside seemed to regard the increase from 28 per cent. to 47 per cent. as a marginal increase. I call it not far short of a doubling. The signs for this coming year are that participation will reach close to 60 per cent. The loans are a major part of the scene and students generally accept the principle of loans and their part in investing in their future.
The system offers a fair deal for parents, for taxpayers and, because repayment terms are equitable, for students. I warmly commend the regulations to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In the 50 minutes available for the rest of the debate, no fewer than eight hon. Members hope to catch my eye. I hope that hon. Members who are fortunate to be called early will bear that in mind.

Mr. Mike Watson: I regret that we are having this debate and that it is necessary. I accept your stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the amount of time available. I shall address my remarks to the mandatory awards regulations.
As I represent a constituency that contains two universities and six colleges of further and higher education, I am only too well aware of the effects of student loans. I served on the Committee that considered student loans. Many of the things that my colleagues and I argued against in relation to those regulations have come to pass.
A constant stream of students complain to me about one aspect or another. They complain that they have great difficulty in pursuing their studies, which we never had to face. I suspect that the Minister, when he was a student at New college, Oxford, never had to contribute towards his education. I see no difference between then and now. We are of a different generation. The Government expect today's students to make a financial contribution when few of our generation faced that necessity. We were able to study at a time and within an environment that were much more favourable than today's. Hon. Members should remember that when they consider this matter.
The shameful decision to abolish the older students' allowance is perhaps the unkindest cut of all. It hits students who have missed out on higher education the first time around and who are hoping to get a second bite at the cherry. They may have missed out through no fault of their own. Many will now have the door slammed in their face again. The decision is particularly perverse because the number of mature students receiving the allowance has increased dramatically in the past five years.
Figures supplied to me by Ministers in the Scottish Office, Northern Ireland Office and the Department for Education show that dramatic increase. There are some 7,200 such students in Scotland, 500 in Northern Ireland, 32,500 in England and Wales. In Scotland, the figure has increased by 300 per cent.; in England and Wales, it has increased by 250 per cent. in the past five years. Clearly, that shows that demand exists for the allowance, contrary to what the Minister said. He says that students claim for

it, but that it is not necessary. Of course it is necessary. It is a means of entering higher education for people who have never had the opportunity to do so.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Watson: I am sorry, but I cannot give way because of the restriction on time.
The total cost of the mature students' allowance, aside from the administrative costs, which Ministers have told me they cannot calculate, is £34 million to £35 million a year. That will be the saving when it is abolished. We should put that in the context of the total education budget. The sum barely ripples the water. Clearly, the reason for doing away with the older student's allowance is to save money.
All the evidence we can assemble shows that mature students in higher education have greater financial difficulty and suffer much heavier debt than their younger counterparts. We have recognised for some time that students over the age of 26, particularly those coming from employment, have difficulty in making the transition from a wage to a student income. In many cases, mature students are giving up a job in the hope of ultimately bettering themselves and their employment opportunities through achieving a degree.
Since 1989, the number of mature students has increased. They now form 17 per cent. of students in higher education. I can hazard only a guess as to what that figure will be five years from now. I suspect that it will dramatically decrease. The abolition of the older student's allowance is a regressive step that can be only a disincentive to people hoping to enter higher education.
An even greater injustice is being done to people hoping to enter education this year through the older students' allowance. They applied in good faith before December last year and in the belief that they would receive the allowance. The Government have turned around to them and said, "We gave you that guarantee, but we changed the rules of the game after the game was in progress." The applications are in and a number of potential students are caught in that trap. Whatever the merits, and I cannot see any, of the proposal, it is entirely unjust that people who applied in good faith will not receive the allowance.
Another aspect of concern involves home students aged over 50. Such students are not even eligible for a student loan. Anyone entering higher education at the age of 50 will be especially badly affected. I hope that, if he does reply, the Minister will give some consideration to the people caught in that trap.
I have tried to get some rationale for the cut—I got none from the Minister in his speech. The proposal is clearly an attempt to save money, albeit a relatively small amount. I managed to find two answers that he gave in December last year to questions on the savings that would arise. In one, he said that this was an additional allowance which was not targeted at any specific maintenance requirement that a student might have. As I have tried to demonstrate, that is not true. First, the older student's allowance is means-tested; and, secondly, older students tend to have extra commitments such as families and mortgages, which younger students do not have. The National Union of Students survey on value for money


found that the total average debt for students aged over 26 was £6,105. That compares with an average total debt of about £2,500 for those in the 17 to 21 age bracket.
I throw back at the Minister the fact that, when we started studying, our generation did not leave university with a debt around our necks and the burden of having to pay that off. The main problem for us was finding a job. Of course, that problem still exists, but hanging over the heads of graduates now is the fact that if they get a job that earns them more than £14,000 a year—not a massive salary these days—they have to start paying back the debt. We must appreciate that students over the age of 26 have additional burdens over and above the loans which, if they want to go into higher education, they will be forced to take.
The Minister also said in that parliamentary answer that, because of the continuing pressures on public spending, extra support could not be justified. He is saying that £35 million throughout the United Kingdom cannot be justified. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) may grin and think this is funny, but I wonder how many of his constituents will ask him how he voted when the mandatory regulations were discussed on 22 February. I hope that he will be able to say to them, "Yes, I voted to abolish them because I think that that is in your best interests."
The regulations cannot possibly be in his constituents' best interests. The implications are clearly more important for the public sector borrowing requirement than for the future of education, yet they involve minimal savings.

Dr. Spink: rose—

Mr. Watson: I cannot give way because I do not have time. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Minister has already spoken in rather scathing terms about what he has described as hard luck stories about students who will be denied a place in higher education. He may not thank me for doing this, but I intend to refer to the case of one of my constituents, which made my blood boil when it came to my attention.
The constituent is called Jane Pepper and she lives in the Langside area of my constituency. She is 29 years old and has worked in the civil service—the Department of Social Security—since 1986. She decided that she wanted to broaden her job prospects and opportunities, so this year she enrolled at the Glasgow college of food technology to do an access course. That course has no other purpose than to help people gain access to university. It has no value on its own. It does not lead on to another degree.
While Jane Pepper is doing that course, she is receiving assistance through maintenance, course expenses and travelling expenses of about £3,000. When she applied for a university place—she has been offered places at three universities for the academic year starting October—under the old student's allowance she was entitled to about the same amount—just over £3,000. It was on that basis that she applied for a university place.
As I said, the rules have been changed after the game has started. I want to refer to something, although it may not be within the Minister's direct responsibility. The further and higher education charter for Scotland, which

was issued in 1993, states that, before applying, a person would want to assess the costs of embarking on a course and how much financial support he or she might get.
The Government trumpet their citizens charters. They tell us that it is all part of open government and enabling people to question the way that the Government govern. Jane Pepper asked those questions, was given answers, applied for a course, was accepted and now has been told, "We are scrubbing what we said; forget it and go back to square one." She cannot go back to square one because she has given up her job. She is left in no-man's land, where she will be considerably worse off. She believes that, over a three or four-year course, she will be about £4,000 a year worse off. I challenge the Minister to tell me how she is supposed to make that up other than through a loan, which will be an albatross around her neck when she finishes her course.
I want to conclude my speech with a quote from Jane Pepper's response to the position in which she now finds herself. It is quite instructive and should be quoted in the House. She said:
I am now faced with the prospect of a grant of £1975.00 per academic year which I simply cannot manage on financially. I am very angry and bitter, and feel betrayed by a government whom I have worked hard for"—
there is an irony there—
for many years. If I had known this before I left my post in the civil service, obviously it would have had a bearing on my decision to leave my job. It seems likely that if these grant cuts are imposed I will be unable to pursue my degree … What the Government will then be faced with is yet another individual claiming social security"—
that is another irony—
adding to the ever lengthening list of government unemployment statistics. Consequently, the government, by their actions, are forcing individuals in my situation to become unemployed which seems ironic.
That is the appalling position in which Jane Pepper and, I suspect, thousands of other people throughout the country find themselves, with the rules of the game being changed after they began to play it. It is unfair and unjust and the Government must reverse their decision.
I end with what is, perhaps, a sting in the tail for my own Front-Bench colleagues. The Labour party is putting up a spirited campaign on the regulations. I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) and for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) will give a commitment that a future Labour Government will reinstate the money that is being lost. Mature students are entitled to it. They missed the boat first time around and they must be given a second chance. If the allowance is not reinstated, they may be denied that opportunity. This Government are at fault; it must be for a Labour Government to put matters right.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is ironic that, yet again, we are seeing the familiar shape of debate, where Labour Back Benchers are demanding more public expenditure and the Labour Front Bench is desperately ducking, diving and weaving to avoid giving any commitment. Labour Members talk about £35 million here and £35 million there as though that is the sort of money that we put in a charity box. The money we put in


a charity box adds up. Every single Labour Back Bencher is trying to persuade those on the Front Bench to commit themselves to further public expenditure.
As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the various options put forward by the Labour Front-Bench team are contradictory, to say the least. There was the suggestion of a graduate tax. What happens to the poor graduate? Is it every high earner who will pay graduate tax? For how long will a graduate pay tax? [HON. MEMBERS: "Life."] Yes, for life. Will it be on top of the normal tax that they will be paying? The hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, "That is a good idea, let's investigate it". Talk about putting off decisions—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am waiting for the hon. Lady to refer to the regulations that we are supposed to be debating. So far, she has not done so.

Mrs. Lait: I shall come to the regulations immediately, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was so provoked that I felt that I had to point out that a great deal of money is involved in the orders.
Those of us who remember our student days and how we were supported have a somewhat rosy view. I was one who benefited from the Robbins expansion, when the new technological universities were established—one of which was in Glasgow. At that time, a number of hon. Members were living on student grants. Indeed, many of us were living on very little. It was almost part of the flavour of being a student. Today's students are pleading poverty when, in fact, they are much better supported than we were in the 1960s. I remember that I lived on £2 a week. If that were uprated in line with inflation, the equivalent now would he £25 a week. There is not a great deal to choose between what I lived on as a student and what students have to live on today. I managed it, I am here and so will they be.
Students are broadly better off with the student loans system than they were. I for one would regard it as a total income package, not as an option for a grant or a loan. One takes the whole package and lives within that package.
One need not pay back the loan until one has an income of more than £14,500, which is not what one would expect on leaving university, and the Student Loans Company's terms are that one pays interest at the rate of inflation. If I, or any other hon. Member, were offered interest rates at the rate of inflation, we would all jump at the offer. That system is especially generous.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: How big an overdraft did the hon. Lady have when she came out of university?

Mrs. Lait: I had no overdraft, but my husband owed an overdraft of £150 to the Royal Bank of Scotland, which he was paying back then at genuine rates of interest, which were considerable.

Mr. Steinberg: The hon. Lady had no overdraft.

Mrs. Lait: There are plenty who did, and they have managed very well on it. That is part of growing up, part of learning to manage money, and it does no one any harm.

Dr. Spink: If a student is not prepared to invest in his own future, why should the pensioner living in my

constituency, who pays a few pounds a week tax on her pension, be prepared to invest in the student's future?

Mrs. Lait: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for mentioning that.
There is no evidence that students are being deterred by the loans system. There may he an element of becoming used to the loans system, but there is no evidence of deterrence. An increasing number of students from social groups C1, C2, D and E are entering the system, which can only benefit our country in the long run.
I should be grateful if the Minister would tackle an argument concerning discretionary grants. Those grants from local education authorities, especially for the performing arts, have decreased in the past five years. The higher education awards are now about 50 per cent. of those that were made in 1991. The director of the London Contemporary Dance school is a constituent of mine, and he brought that problem to my attention. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider some way whereby the discretionary element could be amended.
One of the great successes of the past 15 years has been the enormous expansion in cultural activity, which is profitable and valuable to our society. Job opportunities therefore exist for an increasing number of people involved in the performing arts. It would appear sensible for our grant and loans system to adapt to that demand in the marketplace and to allow people who wish to take up awards in places such as the London Contemporary Dance school to have access to grants on the same basis as, for example, those who go to conservatoires.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham): I wish to reinforce what my hon. Friend says. Under paragraph 10(1)(e)(ii) of the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1994, the Secretary of State has the power to designate courses. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) could include music when he was Prime Minister, should we not recognise both the dramatic arts and dance, as my hon. Friend says, and would it not be about time to give at least a limited number of such places, rather than giving so many places at universities, where people can do drama in their spare time rather than doing it properly?

Mrs. Lait: My hon. Friend reinforces my argument, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would peruse the report that I understand my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has received from the Arts Council for England, to reach some decision to help those schools which are providing high-class education in the performing arts, for which there is growing demand.

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister was obviously not impressed by the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies), but the Minister can at least claim credit for managing to produce a gasp of amazement from his audience during his speech. He certainly amazed many of us when he told us that we were here debating opposition—to paraphrase his words—to measures that will be of great benefit to students.
In reality, we are discussing two orders that continue the breaking of a clear promise given by Conservative Governments. All hon. Members present know and recall


that the White Paper that led to the setting up of the student loans system said clearly that the maximum grant would be maintained at the 1990–91 level. In 1990, that was reaffirmed by the Education Minister of the day, Baroness Blatch.
The orders that we are debating are obviously moving in the direction that the Government announced last year, whereby they are breaking that promise, because the level of grants and loans will be broadly balanced by 1996, which means a decrease in grant of 27 per cent. and an increase in loan of 120 per cent.
It is important that the impact of these measures is considered in the context of what is happening in higher education now. The Minister is right to talk about an increase in student numbers in higher education. The former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) used to boast that the increase in the number of students was the equivalent of 12 new universities. However, both the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister have failed to admit that they have not provided the resources that would have been necessary for the creation of 12 new universities.
I am sure that the Minister will not disagree with the figures that show that, in the past four years, public funding has decreased by 26 per cent. per student and, as the Minister said, student numbers have increased by 44 per cent. It is no wonder that there is a worsening of the staff-student ratio in higher education, that students are facing more and more problems when they try to find books in libraries, that there are overcrowded lecture theatres and that there is a growing backlog of repairs and maintenance for university and higher education buildings.
While universities have had to cope with that, they have also had to cope with the problems created by the equivalent of these orders last year. They will now have to face the problems that will be created this year. More and more students will face increasing hardship and difficulty as they are unable to find the means to support themselves adequately.
The Minister constantly fails to acknowledge that, even if we add together the maximum amount of grant and the maximum amount of loan possible under these orders, the combined amount still means that the vast majority of students will have an income that is less than they would have acquired had they been registered as unemployed. They are about £10 a week worse off.
Another way of putting it is that, under these orders, students who take out the maximum grant and get the maximum loan will have about £50 to £20 left as disposable income to pay for food, heating, travel, books and sometimes even the council tax. It is no wonder that the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals—it is fairly independent in these matters—has estimated that the average annual shortfall of a student's income is well over £1,000.
The growing problem of student poverty is set to rise as a result of these orders, which fail to recognise some of the greater than inflationary increases that students will

have to face. That includes significantly rising accommodation costs, the increased cost of domestic fuel because of—

Dr. Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: I am happy to give way if the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) wants to make a serious point so that students can learn whether he supports measures that, in many cases, will leave them in poverty. The hon. Gentleman may care to say whether he believes that the orders should be altered to put increased money into the pockets of the vast majority of students who have learnt today that they face significantly increased costs for their prescriptions—well above the rate of inflation—because of the disgraceful way in which the Government have introduced prescription increases.
The orders and the figures contained within them continue to break the Government's promise. They will continue to ensure that many students will have considerable difficulties. All the surveys that have been undertaken now show that a growing percentage of students are contemplating having to give up their university course because of financial hardship. Last weekend, I spoke to students at St. Andrews, where a survey showed that 15 per cent. are contemplating giving up. A National Westminster bank survey showed that 21 per cent. of students are considering dropping out.
As has been said by many other hon. Members, the 5,400 full-time students over the age of 50 will be badly hit yet again. Last year, in a similar debate, I said that those people could not apply for loans and therefore suffered considerable reductions in their income. That is the case again. Last year, the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) intervened on my speech and berated me. She said that what I was saying was putting off older students because I had failed to mention the older students' allowance. I shall certainly have to fail to mention it this year because, of course, the Government have abolished it. I wonder what the hon. Member for Lancaster feels about that.
Hon. Members have touched on another problem that is important to mention again. More and more students, because of hardship, are having to take jobs during term-time as well as during vacations—I have no real objection to that. That is obviously undermining the quality of their work and affecting the quality of our higher education. Many surveys demonstrate that only too clearly.
I also agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies) that it is a great pity that the regulations do not extend provision to part-time students. I also agree with his noble Friend Lord Morris of Castle Morris in another place, who said in a debate on a similar issue last month:
The present system of financial support for students is chaotic, inequitable and inefficient."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 January 1995; Vol. 560, c. 1313.]
Unfortunately, it was a great pity that an opportunity to provide assistance for students by supporting a Liberal Democrat initiative to introduce the possibility of students receiving benefits during the long vacation in that debate


was not supported by Labour peers. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that we see articles such as that in The Times Educational Supplement.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose—

Mr. Foster: As I referred to her, I am happy to give way to the hon. Lady.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Would the hon. Gentleman care to say how much the various things that he and his colleagues suggest would cost?

Mr. Foster: rose—

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Hang on a minute. He may have forgotten that, when he had the great honour of going to the Royal Lancaster grammar school, he was described as being muddle-headed and unable clearly to formulate his ideas. It seems that he has not improved as his tutors thought he could.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding me of that report. Indeed, I shared it with the hon. Lady at the time. Nevertheless, she is right to question how much such initiatives would cost. The Minister has said how much the reinstatement of the older students allowance would cost. That stands on the record and my party is committed to that reinstatement. My party has made an attempt to estimate the cost of the introduction of benefit support during the long vacation—about £250 million if there was a maximum take-up.
The hon. Member for Lancaster is, however, unaware that her Government are unable to provide such a figure. When the Government removed the entitlement of young people to income support and housing benefit and were then asked how much they had saved, they were unable to tell us. Nor, subsequently, have they been able to say how much reinstatement would cost. So I hope that the hon. Lady will not be critical of my party's attempts at least to come up with some figure.

Mrs. Lait: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foster: No, because many hon. Members want to speak.
It is important that we place on record the acknowledgement of the Minister that there have been problems with the Student Loans Company. The way in which the company has been administering student loans has certainly not been right. Many students have got into considerable difficulty because of that failure.

Mr. Boswell: Just for clarification, does the hon. Gentleman accept that I said that I was not satisfied with the administration of the student loans scheme in respect of the autumn term? That remains my view and our position.

Mr. Foster: I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear. Of course he is well aware that, by December, 35,000 students had not received their grant cheques, which caused appalling difficulties. It is not surprising that the Minister acknowledges that that is that totally unacceptable.
It is crucial that we place firmly and clearly on the record that the amount of money available to students while studying is currently inadequate. It is hardly surprising that there is increasing hardship among our student population, that they are therefore taking on jobs

in term-time, which does not help their degrees one iota and that an increasing number are dropping out or considering it. Those and other problems in higher education will not be solved by the sort of measures being introduced by the Government tonight. Therefore, I hope that hon. Members will vote against the orders.

Mr. Peter Luff: I benefited from a full grant while at university and I do not relish supporting the introduction of loans, but I can genuinely see no alternative.
There has been a dramatic increase in participation rates in higher education, which has been grudgingly acknowledged by the Labour party. The rates have risen to one in eight from one in three, and funding that increase is an enormous challenge for any Government. Maintaining the old grant system would have represented a massive call on the taxpayer and it was right that the Government should seek to strike a fair balance between the interests of taxpayers and the beneficiaries of the education.
If there were any evidence that students were being deterred from entering higher education, I would be worried. But the evidence is not there. In the two years before the introduction of the loans system, the number of students entering our institutions of higher education rose by 10 per cent. per annum. In the two years immediately after the introduction of the loans system, the rate of increase was 20 per cent. per annum—hardly evidence of the scheme being a disincentive.
If there were evidence that the orders had any disadvantageous effect on the lower socio-economic groups and their participation in higher education, I would be concerned. The House would do well to remember that in Germany, where the loan component of grants is higher than here, the proportion of students from lower socio-economic groups is three times higher than in the United Kingdom. What is more, contrary to what we heard from the Labour party's Front-Bench team, the position is improving. More students from less well-off families are entering higher education in this country.
Among first-year students in 1992–93, the proportion of students from A and B social grades fell from about 55 per cent. to 49 per cent., with a similar increase in the proportion of students from C1, C2, D and E backgrounds. That good news contradicts the bad news that we heard from the Labour Front Bench.
Our record internationally is good. The report of the Education Information Network of the European Community, known as Eurydice, published 18 months ago, said that there was a trend towards extending the system of loans in a number of member states. It said:
the percentage of students assisted in Luxembourg, the 'new' German Lander (former East Germany) and the United Kingdom is high (between 76 and 90 per cent.). The proportions of students receiving support in Belgium … Spain, France, the 'old Länder' of the Federal Republic of Germany and Ireland are smaller (between 18 and 34 per cent.). The proportions of financially assisted students are smallest in Greece, Italy and Portugal (between 2.5 and 10–15 per cent.).
I would have more sympathy with the Labour party if the loans imposed on students had punitive rates of interest or terms of repayment, but they are the most generous loans that I have heard of in the financial system.
We cannot underestimate the rate of expansion of the higher education system. In 1993–94, there were 100,000 extra students—the equivalent of 12 new universities. It is only fair to ask students to join the taxpayer in funding that system as they will reap most benefit from it. The student will be the highest gainer.
I would have more respect for Labour Members' opposition to the order if they had a realistic alternative, but they do not. They notably ducked the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) about how much money they would dedicate to their grand, brave new vision of student support. They are muddled on the possibility of a graduate tax on students.
According to The Times Higher Education Supplement of 6 January, the office of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) recently confirmed that a tax to be imposed on students throughout their working lives was being considered. But the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Davies)
suggested this was a 'narrow and crude concept' which was unlikely to carry much support within the party.
The Times Higher Education Supplement stated that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker)
described Mr. Blunkett's remarks on graduate tax as 'a careless use of language. It was pure ignorance. It was quite clear he said it without thinking the whole thing through."'
I say, amen to that.
The chairman of Conservative Students, Andrew Reid, said in a letter in the same edition of The Times Higher Education Supplement:
What is typical, though, of the Labour party is that its first instinct is to tax the successful rather than to contemplate less punitive forms of financing our students at university.
That is what the measures represent.
We have heard a lot about vacation jobs and students taking jobs in term time. I wonder what Labour's plans for a minimum wage would do for the availability of work for students, during vacations or at any other time.
I would like to raise a question with the Minister concerning section 10(e)(ii) of the mandatory awards order which gives the Secretary of State the power to designate new courses for which students will be eligible for mandatory grants. It provides statutory footing to address the problem of discretionary grants for students of dance and drama which obviously concerns many hon. Members in the House.
Section 10 lists a bewildering array of subjects and courses which attract mandatory awards. Many of those subjects will benefit the country through the graduates who practice them. But dance and drama are excluded; they are left to the whim of local education authorities.
Students of music receive mandatory awards, but students of dance and drama do not. A sociologist will receive a grant, but a dancer will not; a medieval historian will receive a grant, but an actor will not. Why is that so? The arts, including dance and drama, provide jobs and tourism revenue—which is more than can be said for many of the academic disciplines which attract automatic mandatory grants.
Our dance and drama schools are among the finest-if they are not the finest—in the world, but student applications to them are drying up at an alarming rate because of the lack of eligibility for mandatory awards.

The order gives the Secretary of State the power to correct that state of affairs. It would be economic and cultural folly to let those disciplines die. I am encouraged by the new priority that Ministers seem to be attaching to that area and I hope that they will use the power conferred by the order to correct the position in time for the start of the new academic year.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: The Education (Student Loans) Regulations 1994 constitutes a further attack on students. The student grant has been reduced by 8 per cent. on top of the 10 per cent. reduction last year. As we have already heard, the mature student allowance will be phased out from 1995–96, which means that those students who are 29 years of age at the beginning of their courses will lose about £1,000 in grant. Those students tend to have families to support and other financial commitments. Tonight's order can have only one result: less people will enter higher education in the future.
Student loans are the most unfair way of funding students. The system is morally wrong. Those students who have no real need of a loan can get one at very low rates of interest, but those who need financial help desperately and who have already accumulated large debts often find themselves in even more debt. The Government have destroyed the grants system which, although not perfect, was much fairer than the present system. They deliberately reduced the level of grants and then introduced student loans.
The Government's record in the area of student financial support is absolutely deplorable. Since 1979 they have systematically eroded student support. The level of student support has never been generous, but at least before 1979 students could enter higher education without the threat of amassing huge debts and without constant financial worries. Students also had welfare benefits to fall back on, but the Government have destroyed that position and they continue to erode it further in the orders that are before us tonight.
Through a series of measures, the Government have reduced students in the main to living below the poverty level. Student grants were systematically reduced in value by more than 30 per cent. and income support, unemployment benefit and housing benefit were withdrawn. In 1990–91 loans were introduced to substitute the amount of money lost by students through the reduction in grants.
The scheme was so bad—I was serving on the Committee which examined student loans at the time—that the major banks refused to have anything to do with it; they turned it down. As student grants have been reduced, student loans have increased and that trend continues in these orders. The huge reduction in the grant of 10 per cent. in 1994 and more than 8 per cent. this year is an absolute outrage. The full grant is virtually the same as it was 10 years ago and, therefore, in real terms it is worth much less.
It is no wonder that students have acquired large overdrafts with their banks and are also in debt to the Student Loans Company. Before the general election in 1992, the Education Select Committee investigated student hardship. As far as I was concerned, it was quite clear from the evidence that we received that students


were finding it increasingly difficult to exist without getting into considerable debt. However, as that evidence was said to be anecdotal, it was ignored by Conservative Committee members. Consequently, the report fizzled out as the general election approached.
But it was clear to those who were prepared to listen to the representations from students, student bodies and university staff—from lecturers to vice-chancellors—that tremendous hardship prevailed among many students. It was also clear that the accumulation of considerable debt was escalating, and that huge numbers of students were unable to meet the costs of accommodation, food, books, travel and so on out of the financial support which they were receiving. They just did not have enough money to meet their basic needs.
We discovered that students were not only working in their holidays, if they could find work—I approve of that—but were having to work during term time to exist, and that is frankly scandalous. Under the orders, a student under 50 will receive a grant of £2,040 and a loan of £1,150, for a total of £3,190. That will provide a weekly income of £61.35. The weekly income of a person under 25 on benefit includes income support of £36.15 and housing benefit of £35, making a total of £71.15 per week. A young person under 25 is £9.80 better off on the dole than in higher education, while a student over 25 is £19.35 worse off than being on the dole.
Huge numbers of students are living below poverty levels. While there is no doubt that many students manage very well because of their parents' contributions, there are many students who have substantial debts and who experience real hardship, particularly older students who will be devastated by the orders. A system which places thousands of young people in severe debt and hardship is fundamentally wrong, and is a deterrent to poorer would-be students.
The Student Loans Company is dreadfully inefficient, and that also has a bearing on student hardship. Students get further into debt with their banks as they wait for their loans to be processed. The Minister recently told me in a letter that the present system of student loans eased the burden on the taxpayer. Perhaps he could explain how that works when, in 1993–94, the Government were owed £752 million in unpaid loans and had in fact received only £20 million in repayments. In Committee, I remember clearly that the then Minister told us that the scheme would not break even until after the year 2000. At this rate of non-payment, the scheme will never break even. So much for easing the burden on the taxpayer.
The Minister told me recently that the student loans system had reduced in real terms the contribution expected from parents. That may be all well and good in theory, but I assure him from personal experience that it works in the opposite direction. If more students are underfunded and accumulate more debt, more will depend on parental help.
The Minister claimed that students will have a good deal in 1995–96 because their total support will rise by 2.5 per cent. That is a joke. Their grant will go down, their loan will go up and their debts will increase. Is that good news for students? I do not think so. The whole system is morally wrong. It is unfair and, apparently, unworkable. Student support needs to be totally re-examined. Like everything else that the Government have done, privilege and wealth will determine opportunity, and not ability.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: I shall be brief because of the time constraints, and not because I do not have a great deal to say on a subject about which I feel extremely strongly.
As a product of the Scottish educational system, I benefited from—and strongly believe in—the democratic principles which encourage every child to develop as fully as his abilities will allow in an integrated system from primary to higher education, irrespective of income or social background. The Government seem intent on reversing a principle that has been entrenched in the Scottish democratic intellect and that has served my country well over the generations and centuries.
The ability and encouragement of all to benefit from the education system has been a gift to the Scottish people, and the results have been a gift to the wider world. I am afraid that the Government are forgetting those lessons. I fundamentally disagree with the Government's educational finance policy which will eventually and effectively cut vast swathes of the population off from higher education.
The November Budget not only made clear that the 30 per cent. cut was continuing, but proposed the abolition of the allowance paid to students over 26 years old from next year. I was a mature university student, and I am frankly disgusted that the present generation will not be allowed the benefits and the assistance which helped me to undertake a university degree course. Mature students clearly have greater financial burdens and commitments and they carry heavier debts than their younger counterparts. They now constitute 17 per cent. of students in higher education. So the abolition of the mature student's allowance is regressive, shortsighted and unfair to the many students who are committed to courses that began when it was available.
I have heard no rationale for this move, apart from some apparent cash savings. I have certainly heard no educational reasons for it. The Government have offered no rationale for the abolition of the mature student's allowance, so I hope to hear one from the Minister tonight.
For students more generally, the cost of the removal of benefit entitlement and the freezing of maintenance grants has been about £1,070 in lost benefits and about £810 from the freezing of the grant. That £1,880 loss compares with the maximum loan entitlement of £1,120, and it assumes that students do not find paid work during the summer.
Surveys at Aberdeen and Edinburgh universities have shown the practical effect of the Government's policy. Student grant no longer covers the average yearly rent; even with a loan, students have to look elsewhere for money. According to the surveys, students work an average 12 hours a week in term time. That can only put pressure on their academic work and their health. The Edinburgh results show many students paying rents over the summer to secure accommodation for term time.
Average rents have risen by 41 per cent. in four years—the Government have certainly not covered that increase—and 76 per cent. of all students work all or part of the summer, assuming that they can find work. Most students are therefore unable to cover their debts.
Government policy is placing in doubt the whole principle of equal access to higher education for all, regardless of background. My party rejects the Government's position. We believe that education is a right, not a privilege, and that everyone should have proper access to higher education, regardless of financial status.
The SNP is making a commitment to abolishing loans and giving all students a decent grant, index-linked for inflation and independent of parental income. That fits well with Scottish educational tradition. Nothing less will ever be acceptable—a lesson that I wish the Government had learnt.

Mr. Boswell: With the leave of the House, I should like to say that I have listened with interest to the debate. We take seriously the problems that students may encounter and we shall carefully consider all the points that have been made. But I have not heard from the Opposition parties, in support of their claims for higher expenditure, any realistic appreciation of how it is to be financed.
There has been a great deal of discussion of the older students allowance. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson) referred to it at some length. We understand from the Student Awards Agency for Scotland that Jane Pepper, who is on an access course, may be eligible for the older student's allowance as a continuing student. We suggest that she pursue that with the agency.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central mentioned the sum of £35 million for the allowance. I should point out that it is not a small amount; indeed, it is greater than the sum of the access funds.
In conclusion, I refer to the helpful and positive contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait) and for Worcester (Mr. Luff). I listened carefully to them, particularly to their suggestions for more funding for the arts. There are some practical problems with the route that they have suggested, not least the considerable expenditure involved in extending provision for the mandatory award. But we are concerned about the practical outcome—

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary to dispose of it, pursuant to order [17 February].

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 284.

Division No. 84]
[9.45 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret


Ainger, Nick
Beggs, Roy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Allen, Graham
Bennett, Andrew F


Alton, David
Benton, Joe


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bermingham, Gerald


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Berry, Roger


Armstrong, Hilary
Betts, Clive


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, David


Austin-Walker, John
Boateng, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Boyes, Roland


Battle, John
Bradley, Keith


Bayley, Hugh
Bray, Dr Jeremy





Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hinchliffe, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hodge, Margaret


Burden, Richard
Hoey, Kate


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Callagnan, Jim
Home Robertson, John


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Hood, Jimmy


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, D N
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Caravan, Dennis
Hoyle, Doug


Cann, Jarnie
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Chidgey, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Church, Judith
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clapham, Michael
Hutton, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Illsley, Eric


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Ingram, Adam


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Clelland, David
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jamieson, David


Coffey, Ann
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Connarty, Michael
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cousins, Jim
Jowell, Tessa


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Khabra, Piara S


Dalyell, Tam
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davidson, Ian
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Litherland, Robert


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Livingstone, Ken


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Denham, John
Llwyd, Elfyn


Dewar, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Dixon, Don
Lynne, Ms Liz


Dobson, Frank
McAllion, John


Donohoe, Brian H
McAvoy, Thomas


Dowd, Jim
McCartney, Ian


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Macdonald, Calum


Eagle, Ms Angela
McFall, John


Eastham, Ken
McKelvey, William


Enright, Derek
Mackinlay, Andrew


Etherington, Bill
McNamara, Kevin


Evans, John (St Helens N)
MacShane, Denis


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McWilliam, John


Fatchett, Derek
Maddock, Diana


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mahon, Alice


Flynn, Paul
Mandelson, Peter


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Marek, Dr John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Foulkes, George
Martin, Michael J (Springburn)


Fraser, John
Martlew, Eric


Fyfe, Maria
Maxton, John


Galbraith, Sam
Meacher, Michael


Galloway, George
Meale, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Michael, Alun


George, Bruce
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Milburn, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Goding, Mrs Llin
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Graham, Thomas
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Grant Bernie (Tottenham)
Morgan, Rhodri


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Grocott, Bruce
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Gunned, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Hanson, David
Murphy, Paul


Hardy, Peter
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Heppell, John
O'Hara, Edward


Hil, Keith (Streatham)
Olner, Bill






O'Neill, Martin
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S &amp; F'sbury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Pearson, Ian
Soley, Clive


Pendry, Tom
Spellar, John


Pickthall, Colin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Pike, Peter L
Steinberg, Gerry


Pope, Greg
Stevenson, George


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Stott, Roger


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Radice, Giles
Timms, Stephen


Randall, Stuart
Tipping, Paddy


Raynsford, Nick
Touhig, Don


Redmond, Martin
Turner, Dennis


Reid, Dr John
Vaz, Keith


Rendel, David
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Wallace, James


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Walley, Joan



Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Watson, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Ruddock, Joan
Wise, Audrey


Salmond, Alex
Worthington, Tony


Sedgemore, Brian
Wray, Jimmy


Sheerman, Barry
Wright, Dr Tony


Shore, Rt Hon Peter



Short, Clare
Tellers for the Ayes:


Simpson, Alan
Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mr. Stephen Byers.


Skinner, Dennis





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butler, Peter


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Butterfill, John


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carrington, Matthew


Amess, David
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Churchill, Mr


Atkins, Robert
Clappison, James


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Coe, Sebastian


Baldry, Tony
Colvin, Michael


Bates, Michael
Congdon, David


Batiste, Spencer
Conway, Derek


Belingham, Henry
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bendall, Vivian
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Couchman, James


Booth, Hartley
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Curry, David (Skipton &amp; Ripon)


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Day, Stephen


Bowis, John
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Devlin, Tim


Brandreth, Gyles
Dicks, Terry


Brazier, Julian
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bright, Sir Graham
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Dover, Den


Brown, M (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Duncan, Alan


Browning, Mrs Angela
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bruce, Ian (Dorset)
Dunn, Bob


Burns, Simon
Durant, Sir Anthony


Burt, Alistair
Dykes, Hugh


Butcher, John
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim





Elletson, Harold
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Legg, Barry


Evennett, David
Leigh, Edward


Faber, David
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Fabricant, Michael
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fenner, Darne Peggy
Lidington, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lightbown, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forman, Nigel
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Luff, Peter


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fry, Sir Peter
MacKay, Andrew


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
McNamara, Kevin


Gardiner, Sir George
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Malone, Gerald


Gill, Christopher
Marland, Paul


Gillan, Cheryl
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gorst, Sir John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)
Mates, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Merchant Piers


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Grylls, Sir Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Hague, William
Moate, Sir Roger


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Monro, Sir Hector


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hannam, Sir John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Norris, Steve


Hawksley, Warren
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hayes, Jerry
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heald, Oliver
Ottaway, Richard


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Page, Richard


Hendry, Charles
Paice, James


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Hicks, Robert
Patten, Rt Hon John


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence
Pawsey, James


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Horam, John
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rathbone, Tim


Howel, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jenkin, Bernard
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jessel, Toby
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Sackville, Tom


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Key, Robert
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knapman, Roger
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Knox, Sir David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)






Soames, Nicholas
Trend, Michael


Speed, Sir Keith
Trotter, Neville


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spink, Dr Robert
Viggers, Peter


Spring, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sproat, Iain
Walden, George


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Waller, Gary


Steen, Anthony
Ward, John


Stephen, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stem, Michael
Waterson, Nigel


Stewart, Allan
Watts, John


Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen


Sumberg, David
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sweeney, Walter
Whitney, Ray


Sykes, John
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Willetts, David


Temple-Morris, Peter
Wilshire, David


Thomason, Roy
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Yeo, Tim


Thumham, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)
Tellers for the Noes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Timothy Wood and Dr. Liam Fox.


Tredinnick, David

Question accordingly negatived.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (CODES OF PRACTICE)

That the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (No. 3) Order 1995, dated 27th January 1995, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th January, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

Rapid Transit Link (Fareham)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Mr. Peter Viggers: My purpose this evening is to give parliamentary exposure to an innovative plan to develop a new transport system in south Hampshire, initially running from Fareham to Portsmouth by way of Gosport. In doing so, I hope to obtain a preliminary view of the Government's attitude at this stage, to canvass support for the scheme and generally to promote awareness of the issue.
There is no doubt that Gosport needs better road access. The constituency is a peninsula between Portsmouth and Southampton looking across to the Isle of Wight. It has an attractive seaside location, but shares with its Portsmouth neighbour a considerable density of population.
Unlike Portsmouth, which has motorway access direct to the centre of the city, Gosport has to rely on one A road, the notorious A32, and one B road for its access. Poor road access brings a range of problems. It deters industrial and commercial investment and it makes it less attractive for shoppers to visit the High street and Stoke road areas of Gosport which are traditionally the centre of the town. But my greatest sympathy is for those who are compelled to sit in traffic twice a day as they travel to and from work.
Much has been done to improve the road access. I formed the Gosport road group some years ago comprising county councillors, councillors of all parties and local business representatives, the object being to act as a ginger group to put pressure on all those involved, the county council, the Government and local authorities, to press for action on the road.
Action has been taken and much can be done by way of traffic smoothing, measures such as co-ordinated traffic lights, improved road junctions and so on. Traffic flow has improved, but any improvements are rapidly overtaken by increased car use. The fact remains that road access at off-peak periods is poor and at peak periods it is bad ranging through to appalling.
Since the area is a peninsula, it is difficult to plan a new and totally satisfactory road access, and the obvious route, across Fareham creek, is probably barred for environmental reasons. There is really no easy way to improve access by road, although much has been done.
Moreover, even a major new spinal road would not solve all of Gosport's travel problems because other internal roads, such as Brockhurst road and Bury road, have such a density of traffic that they are near to saturation level for several hours a day. There is a local joke in Gosport, which no one finds in any way amusing, that anyone who goes for the first time to Gosport for a meeting always arrives late, apologising that he had not realised how bad the traffic would be from Fareham to Gosport and his journey took him much longer than expected.
The Gosport road needs further improvement and the Gosport road group takes every opportunity to make that point to the relevant bodies. I now draw it to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that he will take it on board and take back to his Department the fact that road access to Gosport is unsatisfactory.
Not only are Gosport roads under pressure, but Hampshire county council studies show that 5 per cent. of the county's strategic road network is currently over capacity and that by the year 2011, 46 per cent. of Hampshire's strategic road network will be over capacity, partly because Hampshire's car ownership is slightly above the national average at 0.41 of a car per household compared with the national average of 0.38 of a car per household.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Mr. Viggers: Should there be anyone in the Public Gallery this evening, I am sure that the 10 o'clock motion will have completely baffled them, as it always does.
I was about to make the point that, interestingly, Gosport's car ownership is reflected in the fact that 29 per cent. of households do not have motor cars compared with 24 per cent. in the rest of Hampshire. That poses the intriguing possibility that a means of transport that does not rely on cars might be attractive to local residents.
Against that background, Hampshire county council has been making its plans and is currently at the consultative stage of its review of the Hampshire county structure plan which takes the present planning period from the year 2001 through to the year 2011.
The consultative document quotes my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment as saying:
We need to put urban structures into place today which face up to the environmental challenges of tomorrow. One challenge will be persuading people to make the right transport choice. We shall seek to influence those choices through various initiatives.
The document continues:
These initiatives will include reducing the length and number of motorised journeys which people need to make; encouraging alternative means of transport".
That is exactly where this evening's Adjournment debate comes in, with the proposal of an alternative system.
Within the guidelines that I have just recited, Hampshire county council has formulated the south-east Hampshire transportation strategy to comply with the Government who wish to see bids for funding in a package deal. Hampshire has done that.
One proposal that has been put forward is for a regional metro, which is a much more ambitious rapid transit link than the one I am talking about. It would included transit links between Portsmouth and Southampton as well. but I should stress that, although the Gosport plan for a rapid transport system would be an integral part of that regional metro, the Gosport proposal stands alone. It does not stand or fall by being part of the regional metro system.
The Gosport scheme would run from Fareham station with a loop in Fareham. It would go through Gosport and to Portsmouth town station. I have, of course, discussed the issue with my colleagues. My right hon. Friend the member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) and my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) and for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) are all extremely interested in the project and wish it well. I am delighted that they have supported the scheme by their presence here in the House. I appreciate that very much.
The present scheme would start from Fareham station. It would run for 5 km along a partially disused rail freight line that is used rarely by the Ministry of Defence and a

further 4 km along a disused railway line running alongside a cycle way and a pedestrian footpath. It would then go to Gosport town centre, the High street area and under Portsmouth harbour in a new immersed tube tunnel, to emerge near Portsmouth harbour railway station before moving on to Portsmouth town.
That is a densely populated corridor, with 23,000 households within 600 m of the route of the proposed system. There is no doubt that the system, if implemented, would be of massive benefit locally. First, it would help all those who travel to work between the Fareham and Portsmouth axis, with many places of work being on the route or close to it. Secondly, it would help shoppers, providing access to shops in Fareham and Portsmouth—and, even more important from my constituency point of view, to shops in Gosport, which currently suffer from the lack of good road communications. Thirdly, it would be helpful to schools: the proposed route would be near to a number of large schools.
Finally, the system would be very beneficial to tourism. We in the Portsmouth-Gosport area are keen to promote tourism, and we have some major attractions—HMS Victory and the Mary Rose, to name but two. There are many other attractions, including in my constituency the submarine museum, Priddy's Hard museum and Fort Brockhurst. We do not want people to visit south Hampshire for one day, perhaps visiting HMS Victory before going home; we are keen to promote the idea of visiting the area for a long weekend, and taking full advantage of all the attractions. The presence of tourists for several days at a time would build up hotel and restaurant capacity, making the Portsmouth harbour area a natural holiday resort. Such a development would be considerably aided by a light rapid transit system.
The present scheme proposes 12 vehicles making some 15 stops on the 14 km of the route. It would take some 28 minutes to make the total journey, and maximum capacity would be about 3,600 passengers an hour. That would mean between 30,000 and 40,000 passengers a day—about 9 million a year, according to the current projection.
Schemes of this nature have been studied since the 1970s, but it was not until the 1980s that real progress was made. In 1989, a pre-feasibility study looked into demand, costings and engineering aspects; in 1990, a private sector consortium examined the project. In 1991, Hampshire county council sponsored a study of whether a light rapid transit system based on trams, a guided bus system or a partially guided bus system was preferable, and concluded that the present system of trams was best. That was followed by public consultation, and in 1993 merchant bankers and transport planning consultants were employed.
A total of £100,000 has been spent on trial borings under Portsmouth harbour to test the acceptability of the soil for the proposed tunnel. Hydrological studies have been conducted to ensure that Portsmouth harbour will not be unduly affected by the tunnel. An operational audit has been carried out by a French team, which is responsible for running comparable systems in Grenoble and Nantes. Gosport now has a team of six people, headed by Mr. Fraser Smith, who has relevant experience with the Hong Kong mass transit railway and with Ove Arup and Partners. A serious proposal is now seriously being studied.
The mission strategy is:
To have received approval by the Secretary of State for Transport of an order through the Transport and Works Act 1992 procedure before 31st March 1997.
The project team will also seek the best funding method. The latest cost estimate for the whole scheme is about £104 million, of which private capital might provide about 50 per cent. The team will of course consider the best manner of integrating private capital into such a scheme before asking for the Minister's assistance, and much detailed study and negotiation will be needed. The vehicles themselves, or even the tunnel, may well be franchised or leased. There is much work to be done.
Public sector support would be by way of a section 56 grant under the Transport Act 1968. An earlier study in 1992 led the Department of Transport to write on 16 June 1992:
We consider that, although the analysis will require further refinement, at this stage of the appraisal the economics of the scheme look relatively robust.
That was encouraging, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me that nothing has happened to make the Department feel less confident than it did in 1992.
My final point concerns perceptions—how public transport is seen. Public transport had suffered for many years from under-investment and restrictive union practices. Much public transport has been dirty, cold and unreliable, and accordingly has a bad reputation; but the Government have invested a great deal to improve the position—and rightly so, because the capacity of roads to absorb further cars is not absolute. The light rail transport system would be a dramatic force for good in south Hampshire, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to extend his good wishes to the project.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers) on securing this debate on the proposed light rapid transit line, which would link Portsmouth, Gosport and Fareham. I acknowledge in their places my hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) and for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Martin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd), who I know have an interest in the project.
I shall try to deal with the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport in the time that is available. In March 1988, my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Sir D. Mitchell), wrote to my hon. Friend in reply to a proposal for a light rail scheme linking Fareham and Gosport. He gave my hon. Friend the same answer that I can give the new proposals today: it is for local commercial interests or local authorities to pursue local public transport projects. In that letter, my hon. Friend added:
it cannot be denied that implementing light rail proposals takes time and is more complicated than may at first be realised.
He was, as ever, a master of understatement.
In 1989, Hampshire county council commissioned its pre-feasibility study. One of the corridors that it examined was the subject of today's debate—the Portsmouth-Gosport-Fareham corridor. Discussions

between the Department of Transport and Hampshire county council officials continued and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport said, in November 1991 the council commissioned transportation planning consultants to investigate the scope for obtaining section 56 grant. The preliminary report showed that an outline economic case existed for a rapid transit system along the Portsmouth-Gosport-Fareham corridor.
Hampshire county council has continued to progress the scheme, including putting it out to public consultation. Its dialogue with my officials continues. It plans to confirm its 1992 case for grant in the next few months, to apply for powers under the Transport and Works Act 1992 in mid-1996, and to examine the scope for private sector involvement.
I understand that Hampshire county council is awaiting results from the south-east Hampshire transportation study, which is under way and scheduled to finish at the end of March this year. That will be an important study because its results will enable us to test the patronage forecasts on which the light rapid transit option is based, and the figures in the 1991–92 study. That could, ultimately, be an important part of the section 56 appraisal. The study should also allow us find out whether light rail is the best option in terms of an overall transport package for south Hampshire.
Let me discuss the process of introducing a light rail scheme. There are three elements: the appraisal of the scheme to see if it qualifies for Government grant, the need to obtain statutory powers under the Transport and Works Act and the application for funding if the scheme passes the appraisal test. In all this, the most important element is to establish in general terms whether a scheme is worth funding before spending large sums of public money in getting powers and in getting into the detailed appraisal of the case for grant.
If Hampshire county council wants to make progress, it needs first to establish that the scheme is "in principle" worth funding. It also needs to get on with involving the private sector, not only in the development of the scheme but in establishing the case for attracting developer contributions and for locating other sources of local finance.
I was interested in the figures that my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport quoted about the informal estimates for private sector involvement. Clearly, the lower the overall cost of the scheme to my Department, the more likely it is that we will, ultimately, be able to afford it. That is not just a truism; it points to the considerable need to ensure that every opportunity for involving the private sector is taken in terms both of operations and of commercial development. My hon. Friend referred to such opportunities.
I would like this to happen: before Hampshire embarks on obtaining powers under the Transport and Works Act and commissioning further work on a full economic case, it should collaborate with the private sector in developing the outline case for the scheme and exploring funding approaches which will reduce the call on the public purse.
Private finance brings many advantages to light rail innovation, improved management, the transfer of a considerable degree of risk and, not least, a reduction in the level of public sector support required. There is no set


percentage of private finance over which the Government will support a scheme; each scheme will be different and each will need to be examined in detail on its merits.
We are expecting the private sector to play its part. Light rail can make a healthy operating profit; the current systems in operation in Britain amply demonstrate that. Where a transport scheme brings benefits which are primarily local in character, it is not unreasonable to suggest that central Government should not be expected to foot the whole bill.
I should like to make some general points on the policy context in which light rail schemes are set. There is no doubt about our commitment to the general principle of supporting light rail schemes. We know that they can play a role in relieving urban congestion in some of our major cities. Government funding has already supported schemes such as the docklands light railway, the Greater Manchester metrolink and the south Yorkshire supertram. On 13 December 1994, in the last settlement, we set aside funds for two new schemes—the Croydon tramlink and the midland metro line 1.
Other towns and cities are developing proposals for light rail projects, but one of the most important things to remember is that these schemes are expensive and are not the only answer to urban transport problems. Even in Manchester, where metrolink has been a great success, its overall contribution to reducing congestion is to remove just three cars in a thousand from Greater Manchester's roads. Manchester metrolink is an excellent system and is very effective at serving passengers on the Bury to Altrincham line, but it illustrates the fact that no single light rail line can be the whole solution to a city's congestion problem.
That said, this Government see light rail as well worth support where it can play a significant part—and every car removed is significant. The presence of such a scheme allows the local authority to think of sensible vehicle restraint measures allied with the light rail scheme, which can have a substantial effect on the levels of congestion to which my hon. Friend referred on the spine road from Fareham to Alverstoke.
If light rail is to receive Government support, it must contribute to the Government's overall policy aims for local transport. Those are, broadly, a policy for urban areas to make cities better places in which to live and to improve the quality of urban life. To underpin that, we need to reduce car use wherever that is possible. We are trying to do that not only by reducing traffic congestion but by encouraging the use of alternatives to the private car, while, at the same time, preserving access to traditional urban centres.
There is no doubt that to bring about a reduction in car use there needs to be a modal shift—a transfer from cars to public transport. If that does not happen, we are merely suppressing economic demand and social activity in a way that the community will not accept. There must be a balance. We also need to improve facilities for walking and cycling. In the longer term, we are looking to policies that put the places where people live, work, shop and enjoy their leisure time closer together, so obviating the need for travel.
In 1994–95, the then Secretary of State introduced what was called the package approach to local transport funding.

Mr. Michael Trend: indicated assent.

Mr. Norris: That is something on which my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Mr. Trend) is an acknowledged expert and master, and I am glad to see my hon. Friend in his place and taking such an interest in tonight's debate.
The package approach is an important development in the way in which the Government support spending on transport by local authorities. It says to local authorities that they should not bid simply on the basis of individual schemes that are specific to one local authority. Instead, recognising the fact that most of those transport issues are wider strategic issues, it tells local authorities to bid, as part of a package of authorities, for a package of schemes that allow us to develop strategic alternatives.
The approach has been very much welcomed by local authorities of all political persuasions, and it has produced some very effective and imaginative conclusions this year. It is essentially about the strategic approach that considers transport in the round and demonstrably gives us better results than those that continue to consider measures in isolation.
It is for local authorities to decide the detail of those transport strategies. They need to consider all forms of transport and they need to tailor their plans to the circumstances of the district. Sometimes, that will mean light rail, but often—I say that in the general context of considering such schemes—other policies and schemes will be more effective, and considerably cheaper, than light rail.
It is important therefore that one should consider the light rail scheme as growing out of a local authority's coherent overall transport strategy, not simply as a nice piece of froth superimposed on top of it. A problem must have been identified for which light rail is the best solution. It is not enough that local authorities think that it would be a nice idea to have some shiny new trams.
That being the context in which one regards those light rail schemes, I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport that, as we have previously said, there is, at this stage at least, an outline case to be made for the Fareham-Gosport-Portsmouth line to which he refers. No event that has transpired since he received that earlier assurance would cause the Department to change its mind in that regard.
Let me say a word about the processes that it will be necessary to pursue from here on in. Since the passage of the Transport and Works Act 1992, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport referred, the promoters have needed to seek an order under section 1 of that Act to obtain the necessary powers—that Act essentially replacing the private Bill process with which we were all previously familiar.
I understand that Hampshire officials have held discussions with my Department's processing unit about the Transport and Works Act procedures, and I can confirm that we shall be happy to provide any further help that Hampshire requires in that respect.
Briefly, those procedures require the application to be made to the Secretary of State. It must be accompanied by several supporting documents, including full plans, and an environmental statement, which is obviously important in any scheme of that type these days, and the notices must be published in the London Gazette and in one or more local newspapers.
Objectors have their rights. They have six weeks in which to lodge objections and, if there is a sufficient number of objections, a local public inquiry would be held by an independent inspector. The Secretary of State would then have to decide whether the scheme should be approved, having taken into account the conclusions and recommendations of the inspector.
It is difficult, in all honesty, to predict how long in practice that process takes, unless one has any idea of what type of objections may be circulating. My hon. Friend will appreciate that, in the case of a scheme such as the one that we are discussing, which generally is likely to be extremely well received locally, objections can, in effect, still be petitions from those with property interests in the area or with other commercial interests that they feel will be affected by the scheme.
Until one is aware of the totality of the objections, it is difficult to give a more concrete guidance on how long the procedure will take. Given that the inquiry might last about a month, it should be possible for a decision to be announced in about 18 months from the date of the application.
In view of the quasi-judicial nature of the Secretary of State's role in the process, I hope that my hon. Friend will understand why I cannot comment specifically on the detailed merits of the council's scheme at this stage. That is why I have taken the time available to outline the process and show our general interest in allowing that process to continue.
The promoters have to establish whether the LRT scheme is worth building. An outline financial and economic case leading to a bid for Government support needs to be prepared. Because light rail systems are so expensive, detailed assessments of individual schemes must be completed before a decision is made on whether assistance from public funds is appropriate. Given the prohibitive level of capital costs, it is highly unlikely that anyone would be able to build and operate an LRT scheme profitably without grant.
My hon. Friend was right to refer to section 56 of the Transport Act 1968 which permits the Secretary of State to give a grant for certain large new public transport infrastructure projects where there are exceptional reasons for using specific grants to spread the cost beyond users and local charge payers. The grant is used to fund these light rail schemes and the other schemes to which I referred.
It is for the promoters to establish whether the light rail system is the best possible option. They have to look at patronage, potential local benefits and at the reduction in congestion. Underpinning all that is the question whether

the benefit to the economy will be greater than the cost. Light rail schemes are appraised on the basis of commercial viability and are supported by a full cost-benefit analysis covering benefits to users as well as to non-users. The non-user benefits are particularly important.
I have already said that light rail is expensive. It has high costs compared with roads, new railway stations, public transport interchanges, bus-based park and ride, and so on. However, expensive though that may be, Manchester has shown that, in many cases, it can be worth it.
As I have said, the funds which we have will depend on competition from all other local transport projects. It stands to reason that, if we can increase the level of private and local finance for the schemes, we should be able to support more light rail schemes over a shorter time scale.
When a local authority is promoting a scheme, the Government will expect it to examine the scope for private sector involvement in construction and in the operation of the scheme. The Department will also expect local authorities sponsoring projects to use the competitive tendering process wherever possible. In some cases, it might be appropriate to have a single contract for the design, build, operation and maintenance—the DBOM concept—and for the whole of that single contract to be put out to tender.
In those cases, the amount of grant will be based on the amount required by the successful tenderer. Normally, that tenderer will be the bidder requiring the least public sector subsidy. In other cases, it may be appropriate for different elements of the scheme—design and build and operation and maintenance—to be treated as separate projects. There is sufficient flexibility in the section 56 arrangements for that to be taken into account.
The advice that my hon. Friend was given in 1988 was and still is correct. It is because light rail systems are so expensive that that sort of long and detailed assessment of individual schemes has to be performed before a decision is made on whether assistance from public funds is applicable.
My hon. Friend has put his case with great clarity. He has made it clear that he does not expect me to produce a signed cheque from my pocket this evening—I am grateful for that, because I fear that I do not have it with me. I hope that he will have gathered that we recognise that the concept of light rail has real value in solving some of the more deep-seated problems of urban congestion and that we recognise that the Hampshire study has revealed a case that can realistically be taken forward. I hope that that is the assurance that my hon. Friend sought.
I am sure that Hampshire will want to examine the record of tonight's proceedings and I must say that it is important to try to do as much of the work as possible to establish the—

The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.